HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Progress to date (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=916790)

HCH 05-23-2011 05:32 AM

Progress to date
 
All of this is my opinion only.

I feel Gauthier has made some great progress in building the Habs into a team that fits his vision. Not only that, he has kept an eye on the farm system and seems intent on filling the pipeline with talent.

The signing of Emelin and Diaz is very telling. It is an indication that he was unhappy with our defense last year and concerned about the ability to re-sign some key players. It also tells me that some of the vets who are looking for new contracts are in trouble.

Gauthier continues to make unexpected moves. The Eller trade, the Wiz trade, signing Emelin, signing Diaz, wrapping up Pleks when it seemed like it might be difficult, picking up Zanette and Berger, signing Nash last year. Those moves added a lot of talent that can quickly contribute to organizational success.

I find the Diaz and Berger signings particularly interesting because of their Swiss backgrounds. I have felt for a while that it might have been an overlooked pool of talent that might be a good fit for Montreal.

Diaz (and or Weber) really seem like they may be in line to fill Wiz's spot if he can't be re-signed at a reasonable price.

I really think his next move will be at forward. Like every other team, the Habs could use another productive forward. I am not so sure that Kostitsyn will be gone but he may be. I am not positive that Gomez will stay; he likely will but there is always a remote chance that he could be elsewhere. Personally, I would like to see an upgrade at his position and at a lower salary but who wouldn't. If anyone can do it, it would be Gauthier.

I get the feeling that Gauthier will do everything in his power to put together a competitive team next year. I also get the feeling that once the season starts, he won't make any big changes unless forced into it by injuries, etc.

He builds the team, the coach puts together the plan of attack and they stick with that, constantly evaluating the team to see what can be done to improve it during the following off-season. Even at the trade deadline next year, I don't see him making any major moves. I believe that approach brings a feeling of stability into the room.

So far, I like what I have seen.

BaseballCoach 05-23-2011 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HCH (Post 33193849)
All of this is my opinion only.

I feel Gauthier has made some great progress in building the Habs into a team that fits his vision. Not only that, he has kept an eye on the farm system and seems intent on filling the pipeline with talent.

The signing of Emelin and Diaz is very telling. It is an indication that he was unhappy with our defense last year and concerned about the ability to re-sign some key players. It also tells me that some of the vets who are looking for new contracts are in trouble.

Gauthier continues to make unexpected moves. The Eller trade, the Wiz trade, signing Emelin, signing Diaz, wrapping up Pleks when it seemed like it might be difficult, picking up Zanette and Berger, signing Nash last year. Those moves added a lot of talent that can quickly contribute to organizational success.

I find the Diaz and Berger signings particularly interesting because of their Swiss backgrounds. I have felt for a while that it might have been an overlooked pool of talent that might be a good fit for Montreal.

Diaz (and or Weber) really seem like they may be in line to fill Wiz's spot if he can't be re-signed at a reasonable price.

I really think his next move will be at forward. Like every other team, the Habs could use another productive forward. I am not so sure that Kostitsyn will be gone but he may be. I am not positive that Gomez will stay; he likely will but there is always a remote chance that he could be elsewhere. Personally, I would like to see an upgrade at his position and at a lower salary but who wouldn't. If anyone can do it, it would be Gauthier.

I get the feeling that Gauthier will do everything in his power to put together a competitive team next year. I also get the feeling that once the season starts, he won't make any big changes unless forced into it by injuries, etc.

He builds the team, the coach puts together the plan of attack and they stick with that, constantly evaluating the team to see what can be done to improve it during the following off-season. Even at the trade deadline next year, I don't see him making any major moves. I believe that approach brings a feeling of stability into the room.

So far, I like what I have seen.

In general yes, but I believe PG made a mistake in not re-signing Dominic Moore and letting Max Lapierre go for little return.

The Moore-Lapierre-Pyatt line was very valuable in the playoffs and should have been kept together. By shutting down one of the opponents top two lines, they gave either Cammalleri or Gionta a chance to play against a bottom line.

habsjunkie2* 05-23-2011 03:01 PM

So far he receives a passing grade from me. Not anything extraordinary, made some quiet moves that I liked and a move or 2 I wasn't completely crazy about, but could understand his rationale behind the decisions. I don't like the Ryan O'byrne deal even slightly, but it is what it is, O'byrne is never gonna be a great dman, but I like the added depth he provided.

Lucius 05-23-2011 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballCoach (Post 33198377)
In general yes, but I believe PG made a mistake in not re-signing Dominic Moore and letting Max Lapierre go for little return.

The Moore-Lapierre-Pyatt line was very valuable in the playoffs and should have been kept together. By shutting down one of the opponents top two lines, they gave either Cammalleri or Gionta a chance to play against a bottom line.

Well, no GM will ever bat .1000, but I give him a pass on Lapierre. The guy had grown too big for himself in Montreal and is a classic case where I think a French Canadian player had to be moved because the media glare had given him on over inflated sense of value.

Honestly, while Vancouver is going well, I don't think he's been all that impressive. He is what he is, a 3rd/4th liner at best. And it's telling that Anaheim dealt him really fast too. I think the two trades may have just brought him down to Earth and gotten him to focus on what he's good at. I doubt he'd achieve similar results if they'd kept him.

Moore? Sure, he'd like a do-over, but the Halpern replacement was half the price and I think Halpern definitely provided at least half the value of a Moore. It looks bad now, but the cap is the cap and these things happen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 (Post 33199181)
So far he receives a passing grade from me. Not anything extraordinary, made some quiet moves that I liked and a move or 2 I wasn't completely crazy about, but could understand his rationale behind the decisions. I don't like the Ryan O'byrne deal even slightly, but it is what it is, O'byrne is never gonna be a great dman, but I like the added depth he provided.

I disagree on this one. Obviously, knowing what we know now about injuries, he probably would have been kept. That said, we got better long term value (a decent prospect) out of it. If anything, the O'Byrne deal demonstrates how little Lapierre was worth. They got something for O'Byrne and while the trade was tough in the short term, there was no way to predict that when it happened.

swimmer77 05-23-2011 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucius (Post 33199776)
Well, no GM will ever bat .1000, but I give him a pass on Lapierre. The guy had grown too big for himself in Montreal and is a classic case where I think a French Canadian player had to be moved because the media glare had given him on over inflated sense of value.

Honestly, while Vancouver is going well, I don't think he's been all that impressive. He is what he is, a 3rd/4th liner at best. And it's telling that Anaheim dealt him really fast too. I think the two trades may have just brought him down to Earth and gotten him to focus on what he's good at. I doubt he'd achieve similar results if they'd kept him.

Moore? Sure, he'd like a do-over, but the Halpern replacement was half the price and I think Halpern definitely provided at least half the value of a Moore. It looks bad now, but the cap is the cap and these things happen.




I disagree on this one. Obviously, knowing what we know now about injuries, he probably would have been kept. That said, we got better long term value (a decent prospect) out of it. If anything, the O'Byrne deal demonstrates how little Lapierre was worth. They got something for O'Byrne and while the trade was tough in the short term, there was no way to predict that when it happened.

I understand what you are saying about the bolded but still respectfully disagree only because in the prior two years the injuries to the Habs' D have been numerous.

2008 - 2009

Markov (end of season / playoffs)
Komisarek
Dandenault
Bouillon
Brisebois (playoffs)
Schneider

All of the above were out either for extended periods of time or at inopportune times or a combination thereof.

2009 - 2010

Markov (three different times)
Gill (extended period of time)
O'Byrne (extended period of time)
Bergeron (extended period of time)
Mara (extended period of time)
Hamrlik for a few games

I felt the same as you at times but then the more I thought about O'Byrne being moved the less I liked the move especially given the Habs' weren't exactly overloaded with right handed D. And a comment another player made led me to believe that the Gorges' injury was known at the beginning of the season. And I guess D-men can be traded for as the Habs have certainly proved. I just decided I didn't like the move given the history of the team.

Kriss E 05-23-2011 08:40 PM

I agree, so far, he's done a stand up job. I'm very eager to see what he'll do this summer.

Hank Scorpio 05-23-2011 08:56 PM

I haven't really been displeased with him but there's nothing he's done that really has me (more) excited about the Habs in preparation for this season. I'm not sure if Gainey really had a vision beyond his '5 year plan' and in that regard I think Gauthier has done a good job of restocking the cupboards while icing a competitive team. All this, however, is a bit of a moot point as he didn't have too many holes to plug coming out of last season (2009-2010). I think the first real test will be this summer where he has the cap space and roster spots to really improve the club but has to keep his soon to be RFA's in mind too. It will be interesting to see what he does.

Lucius 05-24-2011 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer77 (Post 33200631)
I understand what you are saying about the bolded but still respectfully disagree only because in the prior two years the injuries to the Habs' D have been numerous.

2008 - 2009

Markov (end of season / playoffs)
Komisarek
Dandenault
Bouillon
Brisebois (playoffs)
Schneider

All of the above were out either for extended periods of time or at inopportune times or a combination thereof.

2009 - 2010

Markov (three different times)
Gill (extended period of time)
O'Byrne (extended period of time)
Bergeron (extended period of time)
Mara (extended period of time)
Hamrlik for a few games

I felt the same as you at times but then the more I thought about O'Byrne being moved the less I liked the move especially given the Habs' weren't exactly overloaded with right handed D. And a comment another player made led me to believe that the Gorges' injury was known at the beginning of the season. And I guess D-men can be traded for as the Habs have certainly proved. I just decided I didn't like the move given the history of the team.

Fair enough, but really, all moving O'Byrne did is force them to get Paul Mara.

I'd take Bournival and the loss of the mid-round pick over the marginal (if at all) upgrade of O'Byrne over Mara this season.

neofury* 05-24-2011 11:04 AM

I guess I'm one of the few in the camp that are excited to see what Bournival can bring to the table? To me he seems like a boom or bust 3rd/4th line guy who can contribute to the team. (Another Chipchura in that regard?)

domdo345 05-24-2011 11:08 AM

Every player is different in that regard...chipchura was useless on the 3rd/4th line because he was slow and couldnt play dump and chase while bournival is a fast player that gives troubles to opposition D. Anyway he'll have to spend some time in the AHL before talked about a 3rd/4th liner...

Monctonscout 05-24-2011 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballCoach (Post 33198377)
In general yes, but I believe PG made a mistake in not re-signing Dominic Moore and letting Max Lapierre go for little return.

The Moore-Lapierre-Pyatt line was very valuable in the playoffs and should have been kept together. By shutting down one of the opponents top two lines, they gave either Cammalleri or Gionta a chance to play against a bottom line.

I keep reading this stuff and it's BS.

Gauthier got a cheaper/more productive version of Moore in Halpern...better faceoff %, better +- and better 5 on 5 production...PLUS he saved 500 k in cap hit. How the hell is that a mistake??

Analyzer 05-24-2011 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neofury (Post 33213657)
I guess I'm one of the few in the camp that are excited to see what Bournival can bring to the table? To me he seems like a boom or bust 3rd/4th line guy who can contribute to the team. (Another Chipchura in that regard?)

I doubt it.

Though, Chipchura's fighting came out of no where when he knew he wasn't good enough to make it on his skills alone, so had to add to his game.

Talks to Goalposts 05-24-2011 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neofury (Post 33213657)
I guess I'm one of the few in the camp that are excited to see what Bournival can bring to the table? To me he seems like a boom or bust 3rd/4th line guy who can contribute to the team. (Another Chipchura in that regard?)

I like him too. I think he's a good shot to make the NHL, in what capacity is yet to be determined. He's also young enough to have another year of junior eligibilty and a has a very strong likelihood of making team Canada next year with Gallagher.

neofury* 05-24-2011 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domdo345 (Post 33213717)
Every player is different in that regard...chipchura was useless on the 3rd/4th line because he was slow and couldnt play dump and chase while bournival is a fast player that gives troubles to opposition D. Anyway he'll have to spend some time in the AHL before talked about a 3rd/4th liner...

Yeah I didn't mean their game was similar but rather similar projection with some nice upside if they do pan out.

Miller Time 05-24-2011 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HCH (Post 33193849)
All of this is my opinion only.

I feel Gauthier has made some great progress in building the Habs into a team that fits his vision. Not only that, he has kept an eye on the farm system and seems intent on filling the pipeline with talent.

The signing of Emelin and Diaz is very telling. It is an indication that he was unhappy with our defense last year and concerned about the ability to re-sign some key players. It also tells me that some of the vets who are looking for new contracts are in trouble.

Gauthier continues to make unexpected moves. The Eller trade, the Wiz trade, signing Emelin, signing Diaz, wrapping up Pleks when it seemed like it might be difficult, picking up Zanette and Berger, signing Nash last year. Those moves added a lot of talent that can quickly contribute to organizational success.

I find the Diaz and Berger signings particularly interesting because of their Swiss backgrounds. I have felt for a while that it might have been an overlooked pool of talent that might be a good fit for Montreal.

Diaz (and or Weber) really seem like they may be in line to fill Wiz's spot if he can't be re-signed at a reasonable price.

I really think his next move will be at forward. Like every other team, the Habs could use another productive forward. I am not so sure that Kostitsyn will be gone but he may be. I am not positive that Gomez will stay; he likely will but there is always a remote chance that he could be elsewhere. Personally, I would like to see an upgrade at his position and at a lower salary but who wouldn't. If anyone can do it, it would be Gauthier.

I get the feeling that Gauthier will do everything in his power to put together a competitive team next year. I also get the feeling that once the season starts, he won't make any big changes unless forced into it by injuries, etc.

He builds the team, the coach puts together the plan of attack and they stick with that, constantly evaluating the team to see what can be done to improve it during the following off-season. Even at the trade deadline next year, I don't see him making any major moves. I believe that approach brings a feeling of stability into the room.

So far, I like what I have seen.


I'm still on the fence with PG personally. I've liked some moves, disliked others, but in general he's done pretty well considering the situation he took over.

that said, one thing that does trouble me about his tenure so far is that, much like under Gainey, there doesn't seem to be a clear vision or identity he's working towards.

I wonder, what do you see as his "vision", b/c i'm not seeing it. From what I can tell, the bulk of his moves have been made out of necessity as opposed to by design...

and looking at the players he's brought in:

Palushaj
Moore
Eller, Schultz
Halpern
Bournival
Wisniewski
Mara
Sopel


of that group, 4-5 were temporary plugs, and the rest don't seem to fit any particular mould/vision.


This summer, and how he handles re-building the defense, will speak volumes about what his plan is for the team long-term. Come the fall I think we'll have sufficient evidence to either support or critique his vision... I hope the former proves easy to do!

Talks to Goalposts 05-24-2011 03:54 PM

One thing I've noticed is that Gauthier seems to like to trade for prospects rather than picks. I sort of get the impression that the guys picked up are ones the scouting staff wanted but didn't have the oppurtunity to get. For example Eller went just before McDonagh and I've heard he was purportedly on the Habs radar, Bournival was looked at for the 2nd round but that pick was traded etc.

habsjunkie2* 05-24-2011 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucius (Post 33199776)
Well, no GM will ever bat .1000, but I give him a pass on Lapierre. The guy had grown too big for himself in Montreal and is a classic case where I think a French Canadian player had to be moved because the media glare had given him on over inflated sense of value.

Honestly, while Vancouver is going well, I don't think he's been all that impressive. He is what he is, a 3rd/4th liner at best. And it's telling that Anaheim dealt him really fast too. I think the two trades may have just brought him down to Earth and gotten him to focus on what he's good at. I doubt he'd achieve similar results if they'd kept him.

Moore? Sure, he'd like a do-over, but the Halpern replacement was half the price and I think Halpern definitely provided at least half the value of a Moore. It looks bad now, but the cap is the cap and these things happen.




I disagree on this one. Obviously, knowing what we know now about injuries, he probably would have been kept. That said, we got better long term value (a decent prospect) out of it. If anything, the O'Byrne deal demonstrates how little Lapierre was worth. They got something for O'Byrne and while the trade was tough in the short term, there was no way to predict that when it happened.

To me, O'byrne was/is much more valuable to the habs then the prospect received. I like O'byrne and wouldn't have traded him for someone who might never make the NHL. Turns out what PG thought was a position of strength (d depth) was anything but once all the injuries took their toll. Hard to fault him for that, but I am still not a fan of this deal going forward.

HCH 05-24-2011 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller Time (Post 33217364)
I'm still on the fence with PG personally. I've liked some moves, disliked others, but in general he's done pretty well considering the situation he took over.

that said, one thing that does trouble me about his tenure so far is that, much like under Gainey, there doesn't seem to be a clear vision or identity he's working towards.

I wonder, what do you see as his "vision", b/c i'm not seeing it. From what I can tell, the bulk of his moves have been made out of necessity as opposed to by design...

and looking at the players he's brought in:

Palushaj
Moore
Eller, Schultz
Halpern
Bournival
Wisniewski
Mara
Sopel


of that group, 4-5 were temporary plugs, and the rest don't seem to fit any particular mould/vision.


This summer, and how he handles re-building the defense, will speak volumes about what his plan is for the team long-term. Come the fall I think we'll have sufficient evidence to either support or critique his vision... I hope the former proves easy to do!

I think we have to break Gauthier's acquisitions down into three categories.

The first category is where he goes after a potential game breaker. I would say the Eller/Halak trade falls into this category. These can be franchise changing trades.


The second category is where his hand was forced into trading a player away for on reason or another. In those circumstances it looks like he tried to pick up young talent to replace the departing talent. These are long-term franchise building trades.
- Palushaj for D'Agostini
- Boyd for Kostitsyn (which didn't work out well but you can't win them all)
- Bournival for O'Byrne
- Lapierre for a handful of not much

The third category is where he needed a stop-gap solution to fill a need. In these cases he didn't give up much in the way of talent that would be contributing in the immediate future. It also appears he tried to sign free-agents to replace the draft choices he lost including players like Zanette, Berger, Diaz, etc. These are short term trades.
- Moore and Halpern
- Wizniewski
- Mara
- Sopel

Trying to analyze Gauthier's approach by lumping them all together muddies the waters. If you look at the first two categories only, it appears that he is looking for size, skating ability and character. Not all the players will have all three attributes but I believe that character might be something he is looking for in all his acquisitions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts (Post 33217989)
One thing I've noticed is that Gauthier seems to like to trade for prospects rather than picks. I sort of get the impression that the guys picked up are ones the scouting staff wanted but didn't have the oppurtunity to get. For example Eller went just before McDonagh and I've heard he was purportedly on the Habs radar, Bournival was looked at for the 2nd round but that pick was traded etc.

Yes, I think you are absolutely right. You have a lot better idea of how a player will develop when he is 20 years old than when he is 18 years old.

Lucius 05-24-2011 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 (Post 33218327)
To me, O'byrne was/is much more valuable to the habs then the prospect received. I like O'byrne and wouldn't have traded him for someone who might never make the NHL. Turns out what PG thought was a position of strength (d depth) was anything but once all the injuries took their toll. Hard to fault him for that, but I am still not a fan of this deal going forward.

You have a higher opinion of O'Byrne than I do, clearly.

Seemed like a good guy, but the fact is that he was a 27 year old defender who had never fully cracked the NHL roster. To put that in perspective, James Wisniewski is only five months older than O'Byrne. Late bloomer? Sure, but there is a limit to how late. Some people on this forum seem ready to give up on Weber (who is 22), yet somehow, some hold out hope O'Byrne was going to take a giant step forward? The guy was a season away from being Alex Henry.

He did do better in Colorado, but that's to be expected. He left a deep blue line where he wasn't good enough to get minutes and entered a totally decimated blue line. He couldn't help but get some better numbers given the minutes he was playing.

I cannot foresee a situation where he is part of a good team's top six any time soon and the team is loaded with right handed defenders.

He simply didn't fit into this particular team.

Miller Time 05-24-2011 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucius (Post 33219656)

He simply didn't fit into this particular team.

i disagree with most of what you posted, but this last point takes the cake...


you do remember that we were forced to trade away assets in order to acquire Sopel and Mara, don't you?


as VCR is showing right now, having lot's of solid depth on defense is a winning strategy when it comes to building a playoff winner. You can't expect to go far riding a short depth chart filled with aging past-their prime defenders, as we did this year.

yes, the gorges and markov injuries came after we traded O'byrne, but if you are a team with serious playoff aspirations, you error on the side of depth as opposed to banking on your roster staying healthy (especially when a key clog is coming back from major injury).

O'Byrne would have been a godsend for this team down the stretch and in the playoffs...

"didn't fit into this particular team" ??? Why? because he's a big-bodied dman who can skate AND hit? was he a bad fit because he made spacek and gill jealous? seriously though, i don't get it?

Martin, and by extension Gauthier, made a huge mistake with O'byrne. He was clearly a player on the verge of coming into his own, but instead of supporting him and encouraging him, we waited until his value was about as low as it could go and then traded him.

the fact that a few months later we traded away assets to get 2 lesser players is about as unforgiving a criticism of the O'byrne deal as one could possibly make.

Lucius 05-24-2011 10:51 PM

Hindsight is 20/20. Let's try the realistic scenario if they don't move him: He gets put on waivers as the 10th guy on the depth chart and Colorado claims him.

Obviously with hindsight keeping him would be better, but realistically teams cannot carry 10 healthy, waiver eligible defencemen.

It's just not possible. So yes, Gauthier failed to predict the future. What a bad GM.

Reign40 05-25-2011 05:04 AM

No Pierre Gauthier team will ever win the Cup. He doesn't have the stomach for the BIG trade. His teams will always make the playoffs and he is satisfied with that. He will make profit for his owner and that makes Boivin happy. All the players mentioned above are of the dime-a-dozen variety at the NHL level, mostly 3rd or 4th liners...none are (or will become) impact players.
If you are satisfied with a middle of the road team then PG is the GM for you.

19 years without a Cup is not something that sits well with me.

FlyingKostitsyn 05-25-2011 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carey Price (Post 33215061)
I keep reading this stuff and it's BS.

Gauthier got a cheaper/more productive version of Moore in Halpern...better faceoff %, better +- and better 5 on 5 production...PLUS he saved 500 k in cap hit. How the hell is that a mistake??

The only thing Halpern is superior at is faceoff. DM is younger, faster and a better playoff performer. We should have kept him. Halpern had a great start to the season but ran out of energy.

swimmer77 05-25-2011 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucius (Post 33226438)
Hindsight is 20/20. Let's try the realistic scenario if they don't move him: He gets put on waivers as the 10th guy on the depth chart and Colorado claims him.

Obviously with hindsight keeping him would be better, but realistically teams cannot carry 10 healthy, waiver eligible defencemen.

It's just not possible. So yes, Gauthier failed to predict the future. What a bad GM.

That kinda was my point though in my previous point. This team had a history of D injuries in the previous two years. And to start the season Markov was coming back from major knee surgery, Gorges evidently was hobbling on a gimpy knee and they started with three 34 + year old d-men.

But let's suppose Gauthier would have been right and the D would have stayed relatively healthy. Then there may have been the opportunity to make room for O'Byrne on a third pairing and give him a chance to develop. IDK. Just seems the Habs traded a right handed, physical D when they actually could have used him.

At the end of the day it wasn't horrible move. It's just one I didn't quite understand given the injury history and state of the D in general.

Monctonscout 05-25-2011 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reign40 (Post 33232516)
No Pierre Gauthier team will ever win the Cup. He doesn't have the stomach for the BIG trade. His teams will always make the playoffs and he is satisfied with that. He will make profit for his owner and that makes Boivin happy. All the players mentioned above are of the dime-a-dozen variety at the NHL level, mostly 3rd or 4th liners...none are (or will become) impact players.
If you are satisfied with a middle of the road team then PG is the GM for you.

19 years without a Cup is not something that sits well with me.

This is the post cap NHL, big trades have nothing to do with the stomach, they are just plain hard to do, especially during the season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn (Post 33232692)
The only thing Halpern is superior at is faceoff. DM is younger, faster and a better playoff performer. We should have kept him. Halpern had a great start to the season but ran out of energy.

More BS.

Halpern was +6 and Moore was -12...Halpern had better 5 on 5 production despite Moore being on a higher scoring team and getting more ice time. In terms of playoff production their career numbers are almost exactly the same.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.