HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   new rookie contracts... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=87588)

Q ADDICT 06-29-2004 10:47 AM

new rookie contracts...
 
The following article has a quote from Bob Gainey about wanting to sign 2-3 draft picks from the 2003 draft this year. Who do you think the players might be?

http://sports.sympatico.msn.ca/Home/...temid=19601018

Marc the Habs Fan 06-29-2004 10:52 AM

Kastsitsyn, Locke, Urquhart and maybe Flood are the candidates IMO.

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan
Kastsitsyn, Locke, Urquhart and maybe Flood are the candidates IMO.

I would consider Maxim Lapierre way before Corey Locke.

Kastsitsyn, Urquhart & Lapierre.

It that was just me , Locke wouldn't be sign & could go again in the draft in 2005 or be a UFA (I didn't check his age to see which apply to him)

Munchausen 06-29-2004 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan
Kastsitsyn, Locke, Urquhart and maybe Flood are the candidates IMO.

Kastitsyn and Locke are probably priorities right now. Urquhart should also normally get signed (at least I hope so, more ice time inthe Q for Lapierre).

Flood I don't know, but I heard last year management came out impressed with Korpikari's skillset so maybe he could be a long shot.

Marc the Habs Fan 06-29-2004 11:05 AM

No point in signing Lapierre since he can't play in the AHL next year(too young) and obviously won't make our team unless he has an absolutely unreal camp.

Locke, Flood and Urkle on the other hand can play with the Dogs next year. Locke is already 20, Urkle turns 20 on October 1st and Flood turns 20 September 29th.

Munchausen 06-29-2004 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
It that was just me , Locke wouldn't be sign & could go again in the draft in 2005 or be a UFA (I didn't check his age to see which apply to him)

That'd be pretty dumb with the kind of success he had. You can think he won't do much in the AHL, but you at least have to give him a chance considering he burned the OHL for 2 years in a row.

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchausen
That'd be pretty dumb with the kind of success he had. You can think he won't do much in the AHL, but you at least have to give him a chance considering he burned the OHL for 2 years in a row.

Well his success in the OHL is just numbers. If I was a GM that's not what I would be looking for to sign a guy. Sure it could influence me but the main point is :

Do we take a chance on this guy ?
What are the odds that if we develop him, he'll be an NHLer for us in the future ?

& for those 2 questions : Maxim Lapierre & Cory Urquhart are way ahead of Corey Locke. Would I sign Locke ? Probably if I want more than 3 but if , like the original thread is we have only 2 or 3 players to sign, then it would be Urquhart & Lapierre before Locke.

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan
No point in signing Lapierre since he can't play in the AHL next year(too young) and obviously won't make our team unless he has an absolutely unreal camp.

Locke, Flood and Urkle on the other hand can play with the Dogs next year. Locke is already 20, Urkle turns 20 on October 1st and Flood turns 20 September 29th.

The point is that every player who play in North America need to be signed in the 2 years so we have until june 1st 2005 to sign Urquhart-Lapierre-Locke & other N.A draft.

markov` 06-29-2004 11:31 AM

Kastitsyn, Urquhart and Locke.

Habs4ever 06-29-2004 11:34 AM

Who said Laperier and Urquart are ahead of Locke??
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Well his success in the OHL is just numbers. If I was a GM that's not what I would be looking for to sign a guy. Sure it could influence me but the main point is :

Do we take a chance on this guy ?
What are the odds that if we develop him, he'll be an NHLer for us in the future ?

& for those 2 questions : Maxim Lapierre & Cory Urquhart are way ahead of Corey Locke. Would I sign Locke ? Probably if I want more than 3 but if , like the original thread is we have only 2 or 3 players to sign, then it would be Urquhart & Lapierre before Locke.


They both didn't impress much past year in a strong team, considering they were both second rounders, while Locke just gaVE MORE REASON FOR MANAGEMENT TO SIGN him after great back to back award winning season if anything Urquart, and Lapperier have to prove that they were worth the pick. I know this and that but getting great nubers should mean something in low scoring league, management will be foolish to make such a mistake, give me one reason not to sign locke he's done everything management expected from him and more, more importantly he proved he can dominate consistently..

gunnerdom 06-29-2004 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habs4ever
They both didn't impress much past year in a strong team, considering they were both second rounders, while Locke just gaVE MORE REASON FOR MANAGEMENT TO SIGN him after great back to back award winning season if anything Urquart, and Lapperier have to prove that they were worth the pick. I know this and that but getting great nubers should mean something in low scoring league, management will be foolish to make such a mistake, give me one reason not to sign locke he's done everything management expected from him and more, more importantly he proved he can dominate consistently..

Right on brotha! Locke rules! I saw him a lot at the 67s games... I completely dominates when he's on the ice.

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habs4ever
They both didn't impress much past year in a strong team, considering they were both second rounders, while Locke just gaVE MORE REASON FOR MANAGEMENT TO SIGN him after great back to back award winning season if anything Urquart, and Lapperier have to prove that they were worth the pick. I know this and that but getting great nubers should mean something in low scoring league, management will be foolish to make such a mistake, give me one reason not to sign locke he's done everything management expected from him and more, more importantly he proved he can dominate consistently..

Again we should stop looking at the stats. Locke was dominating, was exciting but.............was playing with junior player, youppi !!!

Locke & Urquhart maybe didn't impress you with their stats but they look more complete & better rounded than a year ago & that what makes the difference between making the NHL & being the Simon Gamache (HELLO COREY LOCKE).

Belarus Rocket 06-29-2004 11:51 AM

For me,Kastitsyn Is The PRIORITY,we need to sign him and make him play In the AHL next year,after that there Is Urquhart and Locke,we don't need to sign Lapierre right now because he Is too young to play in the AHL

montreal 06-29-2004 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habs4ever
They both didn't impress much past year in a strong team, considering they were both second rounders, while Locke just gaVE MORE REASON FOR MANAGEMENT TO SIGN him after great back to back award winning season if anything Urquart, and Lapperier have to prove that they were worth the pick. I know this and that but getting great nubers should mean something in low scoring league, management will be foolish to make such a mistake, give me one reason not to sign locke he's done everything management expected from him and more, more importantly he proved he can dominate consistently..


Sorry but your off base here. Lapierre had a big season, showed a lot of progression in his offensive game and Urquhart/Lapierre were a major reason for any success PEI had. The first line of Lambert Urquhart Lapierre/Laliberte was the main offense of the team, and constantly had to carry the team offensively. There's a reason why PEI did so well, when the goaltending and defense wasn't all that strong. Look no further then the top 3 scorers on the team, Lambert, Urquhart and Lapierre. 1 only saw them twice, but I listened to many of the games on the net and they were a big part of the team. M-A Bureau also had a good season for PEI, but it was the 1st line that really carried the team.

montreal 06-29-2004 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Well his success in the OHL is just numbers. If I was a GM that's not what I would be looking for to sign a guy. Sure it could influence me but the main point is :

Do we take a chance on this guy ?
What are the odds that if we develop him, he'll be an NHLer for us in the future ?

& for those 2 questions : Maxim Lapierre & Cory Urquhart are way ahead of Corey Locke. Would I sign Locke ? Probably if I want more than 3 but if , like the original thread is we have only 2 or 3 players to sign, then it would be Urquhart & Lapierre before Locke.


I think that Lapierre and Urquhart are ahead of Locke, but I don't think they are way ahead. I do think Locke will be signed, it makes little sense to send him back to the OHL, and you can bet that there's no chance Locke will go back into the draft. If not for his skating/speed/size he would have been a 1st round pick and highly touted. He was a gamble, you can't teach the skills he has. Stats aside he has great vision, and playmaking skills. He will find the open man on the ice. I'm excited to see him in Hamilton to see what he can do. Locke in the AHL is where we will start to see what he have. If he can find success in the AHL while improving his foot speed, we got a player, if not I would still think he'd be a good asset for Hamilton, which is all part of building and maintaining the farm.

Lapierre will be back in PEI as a 19 year old, and should have a big season as the #1 center, unless Urquhart is back. I would sign Urquhart though, see if he can handle the AHL. He has the skill but I wonder how he will handle the more physical faster league.

montreal 06-29-2004 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future=Hossa
For me,Kastitsyn Is The PRIORITY,we need to sign him and make him play In the AHL next year,after that there Is Urquhart and Locke,we don't need to sign Lapierre right now because he Is too young to play in the AHL



I agree Kastsitsyn is the top priority for sure. Locke would be next imo, as he's done in the OHL, 2 years of the scoring title, there's nothing left for him to learn there. Urquhart I'd like to see in Hamilton as I don't think he has much to learn in PEI, as he needs to improve his physical game. Flood is coming off a great offensive season on a weak team. Next year should be better for Peterbrough, but I wouldn't mind seeing Flood in Hamitlon. The lack of defensemen in Hamilton should benefit Flood, but the fact that he didn't get a look during his ATO contract in Hamilton is a bit of a concern.

Korpikari I would think will stay in Finland. After his injury at the WJC's, he ended up the year playing in the junior league, so hopefully he can land a full time spot with Karpat next year, but from the little I know of the team, they apparently have some good young defensemen on the team. I'd love to see him over here, just a guess that he stays over there for a year or two more.

Blind Gardien 06-29-2004 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
...that what makes the difference between making the NHL & being the Simon Gamache (HELLO COREY LOCKE).

If he's the next Simon Gamache, that's not exactly the end of the world either, in my mind. I mean, the guy has had a couple of AHL seasons now around the top of his team in scoring, and just put up a great 24 pt playoff performance in a Calder Cup run with Milwaukee. He's had a few looks in the NHL. He's almost where Ribeiro was before this season. A few different breaks this way or that, and Ribeiro could be Gamache or Gamache could be Ribeiro, maybe. If Locke falls into that Gamachian category one day, then that's probably right about where most optimists are pegging him, and I'm sure the Habs would be happy with that. I'd be happy enough with that.

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
If he's the next Simon Gamache, that's not exactly the end of the world either, in my mind. I mean, the guy has had a couple of AHL seasons now around the top of his team in scoring, and just put up a great 24 pt playoff performance in a Calder Cup run with Milwaukee. He's had a few looks in the NHL. He's almost where Ribeiro was before this season. A few different breaks this way or that, and Ribeiro could be Gamache or Gamache could be Ribeiro, maybe. If Locke falls into that Gamachian category one day, then that's probably right about where most optimists are pegging him, and I'm sure the Habs would be happy with that. I'd be happy enough with that.

I don't have a lot of expectation for Corey Locke so if he's progressing to be an NHLer, I'll be very happy & if he's a continuous AHLer, I won't be deceive because that was a good risk Timmins took with his 4th round.

Guriken 06-29-2004 12:45 PM

Hockey is hockey and if a player dominates a league, there is a chance he will dominate the next. The caliber of the leagues are different and that's why we can talk about adaptation. Locke is a great 4th round choice, he has the skills and we have to see what he can do in the AHL this would be my priority. Kastitsyn should be the next priority and then bring him to the training camp...

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guriken
Hockey is hockey and if a player dominates a league, there is a chance he will dominate the next. The caliber of the leagues are different and that's why we can talk about adaptation. Locke is a great 4th round choice, he has the skills and we have to see what he can do in the AHL this would be my priority. Kastitsyn should be the next priority and then bring him to the training camp...

That's not very true, there's comes a time where the skill level need to be matched with your physical abilities. There's a lot of NCAA players that had GREAT CAREERS in this league & didn't come close to be an NHLer. You would look at their stats & it's so impressive that if you look to much at them you get blind :D .

Corey Locke is at that crossroad right now, his skill level his above the average but his physical abilities is well under the average. You can easily without looking very far making a comparison with how Martin StLouis won the scoring title & Corey Locke can be an NHLer but that fact is that Martin StLouis took his small body & turn in into a warrior, his legs is supposedly so big that you can see some Trees crying when he walks on the street. Plus StLouis skating abilities are well above average which is not the case for Locke right now.

Stefan_Latulippe 06-29-2004 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Again we should stop looking at the stats. Locke was dominating, was exciting but.............was playing with junior player, youppi !!!

Locke & Urquhart maybe didn't impress you with their stats but they look more complete & better rounded than a year ago & that what makes the difference between making the NHL & being the Simon Gamache (HELLO COREY LOCKE).

So let me try to summarize what you have been saying here for the last couple of days.

When evaluating Locke and Urquart the stats ARE NOT important but when YOU evaluate our first pick Kyle C. you are using stats to show that he has no offensive skills....... You are to sensitive on this issue. :shakehead

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan_Latulippe
So let me try to summarize what you have been saying here for the last couple of days.

When evaluating Locke and Urquart the stats ARE NOT important but when YOU evaluate our first pick Kyle C. you are using stats to show that he has no offensive skills....... You are to sensitive on this issue. :shakehead

You must confuse me with someone else because I never use any stats whatsoever with Chipchura to make a point nor I never use stats on any argument I made with my close to 2000 posts I made.

SpezNc 06-29-2004 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
You must confuse me with someone else because I never use any stats whatsoever with Chipchura to make a point nor I never use stats on any argument I made with my close to 2000 posts I made.

But you want for the habs to grab high risk player because the ceiling is higher...

But Locke Ceiling can be pretty awesome if he can dominate at the NHL as he did in junior...


I think we need all sort of prospect...

Some D-man
Some Forwards
Some Goaltenders

Some pure offensive player
Some power forward
Some two-players

Some big prospects
Some diminutives

etc...

I think Montreal can fill almost all these categories...

--------------
WE need to sigh locke before guy like Lapierre because he is older...

We have to sign him...

He is a high risk player.. Maybe he will never be an NHler... But maybe he will... and if he will... We are gonna have a heck of player...

theo6060 06-29-2004 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Again we should stop looking at the stats. Locke was dominating, was exciting but.............was playing with junior player, youppi !!!

Locke & Urquhart maybe didn't impress you with their stats but they look more complete & better rounded than a year ago & that what makes the difference between making the NHL & being the Simon Gamache (HELLO COREY LOCKE).

Before discouting the guy completely, why not give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not another Simon Gamache and sign him? He won't be asking for 1st round money since he was so far back in the draft. I think we should give him a chance, try and work on the other areas of his game and see where that gets us. It won't break the bank to get him in the fold...

Russian Fan 06-29-2004 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpezNc
But you want for the habs to grab high risk player because the ceiling is higher...

But Locke Ceiling can be pretty awesome if he can dominate at the NHL as he did in junior...

Well high risk player & more like an impact player ? there's a big difference. Was Korpikoski riskyer than Chipchura ? Certainly not.

Even if Safer is the opposite of ryskier that doesn't mean it can related.

Chipchura was one of the safest pick in this draft because he was one of those can't miss NHLer, that's why in every draft , every 1st round those guy are attractive & for those who like that philosophy, I'm happy for them.

Locke ceiling is not that awesome because he dominate juniors. Every year there a guy who produce like hell in his league & he won't make it to the nhl , why ? Because being small, tough, big is not a huge difference at that level. The more you go on a higher level those attributes became a factor & we saw it more than ever in this years draft. SIZE unfortunately was take into too much account.

On a teams side thought, on an average draft they did pick with who got the chance to make it at the NHL level & size when it comes to 3rd-4th line & #4-5-6 D is really good when you are big.

Locke got a lot to work on , I agree that we should sign him, I wasn't against signing him, I was just saying that at this point, I think Lapierre & Urquhart got a better chance to make it than Corey Locke who got a lot of weaknesses in him that doesn't translate very well in the NHL.

On another thing about Chipchura, many people focus too much that he was pick because of his size. I can't say i'm holding the truth here but I really think he was pick like Higgins a few years ago because they were 1st & foremost a SAFE pick. The fact that Chipchura is a big center was probably another + value to get him since even if I don't like was a need in the depth organization.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.