HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

JdM news: AKost, Sundin, Hossa, Jagr, new Rules....

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-03-2008, 07:49 PM
  #76
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb_Rafter View Post
JdM and news in the same sentence



When money gets priorities over your own interests
How are those incompatible in this case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsoluteFate View Post
As Homer likes to say....DOH

Personally I think they should go back to a full 2 minutes of PP time like they used to have. If a team scores 2-3 goals in that 2 minute timespan let them. That might make a team a little more careful when dealing with good PPs.
Great...then refs will never call a penalty. It's already bad enough to get a goal scored on a bad call.....I cant imagine 2-3. I dont know what's wrong with the current system....the guy gets a tripping penalty and you team scores on the PP isnt that enough?


Last edited by Beakermania*: 06-03-2008 at 11:49 PM.
znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 07:57 PM
  #77
Souffle
A soupçon of nutmeg
 
Souffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Le Creuset
Country: France
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikizaz View Post
the reason it wouldn't be too much is because Sunding might only play one year. One year till Kovalev and Koivu become UFA. SO at the end of Sundin's One year contract we still have money for both our captain and assistant. I would be in favour of using our Money to do good this summer. Out bid the other interested parties if he decides not to sign with the Leafs. We make money, we can spend up to the cap.

just my two cents.
I see your two cents and raise them by two more cents. I wouldn't hesitate to spend 7 million on Sundin. Lone Rogue's breakdown for next year is pretty illuminating. There will be a cap crunch when Komisarek, Higgins and Plekanec all come up for renewal. But that's unavoidable at this point if Gainey wants to sign/acquire an impact player, whether it's Hossa, Sundin, or Lecavalier.

Short of signing no one at all next year and leaving 12 million in dead space to be sure to have enough money, I think you just have to hold your nose and deal with the situation when it arises. A lot can happen in a year. The cap might shoot up yet again. In any event, the Habs are well-stocked with prospects and cap-friendly young players at every position. The roster architecture should allow Gainey to keep building and renovating the team even with that cap crunch looming.

As for where Sundin would play, it wouldn't matter what line it would be called. You'd have three ES scoring units the way Buffalo had Roy, Briere and Drury. Carbonneau would have to find ES combinations. He's got the parts to do it. Leave the Koivu-Higgins duo and Plekanec's line intact, and you still have Grabovski, Latendresse, SKostitsyn, D'Agostini, and even Lapierre for just three spots. There are a lot of internal, status quo options there, a lot of different styles and skillsets.

I figure Sundin, Koivu and Plekanec would play about 50-55 mins a game, depending on PP and PK. That still leaves a pretty generous 5-10 minutes a game for a young 4th liner like Chipchura or Lapierre. Someone could argue that PK combinations sometimes don't have a C, but the fact that some combination of Sundin, Koivu and Plekanec would play on PP units 1 and 2 should more than compensate, as Koivu and Plekanec (and probably Sundin) also play on the top PK units. So there would actually be more than 60 mins a game to go around for the 4 centers. If the three top centers average just 17-18 mins a game, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all over the course of a season given Sundin's age and Koivu's durability.

Souffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 09:59 PM
  #78
CanadienErrant*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Cook Islands
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb_Rafter View Post
What will we do with Plekanec or Koivu if we sign Sundin? Put Pleks on the third line?
No. Koivu.

But Sundin won't come. So, Koivu on the second line like last year.

CanadienErrant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 10:44 PM
  #79
The Big Swede
Registered User
 
The Big Swede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Gatineau,Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadienErrant View Post
No. Koivu.

But Sundin won't come. So, Koivu on the second line like last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedave View Post
I see your two cents and raise them by two more cents. I wouldn't hesitate to spend 7 million on Sundin. Lone Rogue's breakdown for next year is pretty illuminating. There will be a cap crunch when Komisarek, Higgins and Plekanec all come up for renewal. But that's unavoidable at this point if Gainey wants to sign/acquire an impact player, whether it's Hossa, Sundin, or Lecavalier.

Short of signing no one at all next year and leaving 12 million in dead space to be sure to have enough money, I think you just have to hold your nose and deal with the situation when it arises. A lot can happen in a year. The cap might shoot up yet again. In any event, the Habs are well-stocked with prospects and cap-friendly young players at every position. The roster architecture should allow Gainey to keep building and renovating the team even with that cap crunch looming.

As for where Sundin would play, it wouldn't matter what line it would be called. You'd have three ES scoring units the way Buffalo had Roy, Briere and Drury. Carbonneau would have to find ES combinations. He's got the parts to do it. Leave the Koivu-Higgins duo and Plekanec's line intact, and you still have Grabovski, Latendresse, SKostitsyn, D'Agostini, and even Lapierre for just three spots. There are a lot of internal, status quo options there, a lot of different styles and skillsets.

I figure Sundin, Koivu and Plekanec would play about 50-55 mins a game, depending on PP and PK. That still leaves a pretty generous 5-10 minutes a game for a young 4th liner like Chipchura or Lapierre. Someone could argue that PK combinations sometimes don't have a C, but the fact that some combination of Sundin, Koivu and Plekanec would play on PP units 1 and 2 should more than compensate, as Koivu and Plekanec (and probably Sundin) also play on the top PK units. So there would actually be more than 60 mins a game to go around for the 4 centers. If the three top centers average just 17-18 mins a game, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all over the course of a season given Sundin's age and Koivu's durability.
By the looks of it,he isn't going anywhere

The new owner wants to keep him until he retires

The Big Swede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 10:46 PM
  #80
terreur
Registered User
 
terreur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,739
vCash: 500
15 millions for sundin for 2 years is not really risky or too much. Our target is next year, and I prefer giving him that kind of money for two years we know hell be able to play than give it to hossa for 7 years and being stuck with his contract in the last years of his contract.

terreur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 10:47 PM
  #81
Clumsyhab
Registered User
 
Clumsyhab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,816
vCash: 500
I'm fine with Pleks and Koivu as our top 2 centremen. Let's just find a good big winger for Saku and we'll have 2 solid offensive lines.

Clumsyhab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 10:48 PM
  #82
The Big Swede
Registered User
 
The Big Swede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Gatineau,Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by terreur View Post
15 millions for sundin for 2 years is not really risky or too much. Our target is next year, and I prefer giving him that kind of money for two years we know hell be able to play than give it to hossa for 7 years and being stuck with his contract in the last years of his contract.
He might not even play,I dont think hell want a 2 year contract

The Big Swede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 12:43 AM
  #83
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,527
vCash: 500
If they're going to make any changes to the game, the one thing I'd love to see is getting rid of three point games.

Now that there is a shootout, there's no such thing as a tie so there's no worries about team's simply playing to get to overtime and "play for the tie" and the free one point.

Go back to two possible outcomes: A win, and a loss, period.

You get two points for a victory. You receive no points for a loss, regardless of when the winning goal was scored. Simple.

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 01:04 AM
  #84
Kachino
@kachino82
 
Kachino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 5,607
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
If they're going to make any changes to the game, the one thing I'd love to see is getting rid of three point games.

Now that there is a shootout, there's no such thing as a tie so there's no worries about team's simply playing to get to overtime and "play for the tie" and the free one point.

Go back to two possible outcomes: A win, and a loss, period.

You get two points for a victory. You receive no points for a loss, regardless of when the winning goal was scored. Simple
.
I completely agree with that...

Kachino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 01:21 AM
  #85
LV Hab
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Latvia
Posts: 186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
If they're going to make any changes to the game, the one thing I'd love to see is getting rid of three point games.

Now that there is a shootout, there's no such thing as a tie so there's no worries about team's simply playing to get to overtime and "play for the tie" and the free one point.

Go back to two possible outcomes: A win, and a loss, period.

You get two points for a victory. You receive no points for a loss, regardless of when the winning goal was scored. Simple.
I'd actually want them to follow soccer and award 3 points for a regulation win. 2 or 3 points for an OT win, and 1 point to the loser.
2 points for a shoot out win and 1 point to the loser.

Losing in a shoot out and getting nothing would be freaking brutal. It is a bit of a gimmick, I'm not ready for it to take on an even more significant role in deciding points and final standings.

LV Hab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 01:24 AM
  #86
Kikizaz
Registered User
 
Kikizaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LV Hab View Post
I'd actually want them to follow soccer and award 3 points for a regulation win. 2 or 3 points for an OT win, and 1 point to the loser.
2 points for a shoot out win and 1 point to the loser.

Losing in a shoot out and getting nothing would be freaking brutal. It is a bit of a gimmick, I'm not ready for it to take on an even more significant role in deciding points and final standings.
Isn't the scoring system in soccer. 3-1-0? 3 for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss?


i would be fine if the nhl adapted that and went. 2 for a win 0 for a loss. ... hey i think that's been proposed before...

Kikizaz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 01:33 AM
  #87
Dogbert*
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hamilton, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,052
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dogbert*
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
If they're going to make any changes to the game, the one thing I'd love to see is getting rid of three point games.

Now that there is a shootout, there's no such thing as a tie so there's no worries about team's simply playing to get to overtime and "play for the tie" and the free one point.

Go back to two possible outcomes: A win, and a loss, period.

You get two points for a victory. You receive no points for a loss, regardless of when the winning goal was scored. Simple.
Nope. Terrible idea. Wins in shootouts would then be equal to wins in regulation. Teams who were good at shootouts would just trap for 65 minutes and win in the shootout.

I'd do this: Wins in regulation/OT get two points, wins in shootouts get one, and losses get nothing.

Dogbert* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 01:50 AM
  #88
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
If they're going to make any changes to the game, the one thing I'd love to see is getting rid of three point games.

Now that there is a shootout, there's no such thing as a tie so there's no worries about team's simply playing to get to overtime and "play for the tie" and the free one point.

Go back to two possible outcomes: A win, and a loss, period.

You get two points for a victory. You receive no points for a loss, regardless of when the winning goal was scored. Simple.
The system is the same for everyone. It's not like if it's unfair for anyone. Where's the problem? We have some pretty entertaining hockey with the current system, why change it?

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 01:55 AM
  #89
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by franchise player View Post
The system is the same for everyone. It's not like if it's unfair for anyone. Where's the problem? We have some pretty entertaining hockey with the current system, why change it?
The current system creates too many 3 point games down the stretch.... especially when there are two teams playing each other who are in a playoff race... I personally think this is due to them playing tighter defensively and parody creating close games... but there is also some people who say it smells of collusion at times too...

A 3-2-1 system like what is used in prelim play by the IIHF.... 3pts for regulation win... 2pts for OT/SO win.... 1pt for OT/SO loss.... would stop anyone from claiming collusion, and would take away the opportunity for it to happen.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 02:41 AM
  #90
Jeffrey
Registered User
 
Jeffrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,888
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jeffrey
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Swede View Post
By the looks of it,he isn't going anywhere

The new owner wants to keep him until he retires
Of course the owner wants it... who wouldnt want to keep a top 5 players in the league ??
But the real question is if Lecavalier is conviced and wanna stay in Tampa.

Lecavalier did mention before that he would like to play in Montreal.
Also as of today the habs are near cup contention and TB is the worst team in the league. IMO if TB doesnt improve significantly next year Lecavalier might say good bye.

Also to consider that maybe Lecavalier doesnt care that much about winning in the present time and might still consider a crazy contract offer to stay in Tampa.

Either possibilities does exist as of right now. But we still have another year to speculate all we want. Or as an habs fan dream about it.

Jeffrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 03:11 AM
  #91
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 500
Sundin will NEVER play for Montreal only because he's an Icon in maple laugh country. It's IMPOSSIBLE....

25 million for 3 years .... and we might have a 5 percent chance.

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 04:18 AM
  #92
VirginiaMtlExpat
Iggy button advocate
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habitants View Post
i dont mind the talk about sundin to the habs, its feels kinda strange, but to have a player like him would be a nice thing. the problem i see

Former leafs player, the french media will have a field day with this!

if you think the koivu vs kovalev thing is a problem now? (not for real but with the media) imagine koivu+kovalev+sundin! the dressing room is not big enough! who is the leader?

He's also a former Nordique. Of course, people think Leafs first, but he made the trip from Quebec to Ontario, he can make the return trip!

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 07:20 AM
  #93
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by x eric x View Post
Sundin is rumored to be looking for a 2 year deal worth between 14-16 million.
He'll get that and more.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 08:49 AM
  #94
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
The current system creates too many 3 point games down the stretch.... especially when there are two teams playing each other who are in a playoff race... I personally think this is due to them playing tighter defensively and parody creating close games... but there is also some people who say it smells of collusion at times too...

A 3-2-1 system like what is used in prelim play by the IIHF.... 3pts for regulation win... 2pts for OT/SO win.... 1pt for OT/SO loss.... would stop anyone from claiming collusion, and would take away the opportunity for it to happen.
I disagree. It's just the parity. These games werent defensive most of the games down the stretch arround the league were quite exciting and so many of them got tied in the last moments of the game. I have no issues with the current point system. If a team isnt good enough to at least tie a game in regulation then they shouldnt be complaining about other teams who can manage to do it.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 08:52 AM
  #95
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
If they're going to make any changes to the game, the one thing I'd love to see is getting rid of three point games.

Now that there is a shootout, there's no such thing as a tie so there's no worries about team's simply playing to get to overtime and "play for the tie" and the free one point.

Go back to two possible outcomes: A win, and a loss, period.

You get two points for a victory. You receive no points for a loss, regardless of when the winning goal was scored. Simple.
That's a myth. So far from reality and what we saw last season. It pisses me off people throw this arround...

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:03 AM
  #96
Pascal
Registered User
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kachino82 View Post
I completely agree with that...
me too.

(no more 3 pts)

Pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:24 AM
  #97
anarmandaleb
 
anarmandaleb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiding in a blanket
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
I disagree. It's just the parity. These games werent defensive most of the games down the stretch arround the league were quite exciting and so many of them got tied in the last moments of the game. I have no issues with the current point system. If a team isnt good enough to at least tie a game in regulation then they shouldnt be complaining about other teams who can manage to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
That's a myth. So far from reality and what we saw last season. It pisses me off people throw this arround...
Thank you. The current system is perfectly fine.

anarmandaleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:54 AM
  #98
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb_Rafter View Post
What will we do with Plekanec or Koivu if we sign Sundin? Put Pleks on the third line?
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. With PP PK time there is plenty of ice time for those 3 and the Habs are one of the few teams that can put together 6 legit offensive wingers(Kost brothers Kovy Higgins Latendresse plus Streit or a UFA).

Monctonscout is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:58 AM
  #99
emb24*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,238
vCash: 500
Briere mentioned one of the big reasons he didn't want to play for the habs was because he didn't want to face buffalo 8 times a year. imagine what sundin will feel? i believe this will play a significant factor in his decision to (unfortunately) not sign here

emb24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 09:59 AM
  #100
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
There is no way that Sundin goes to Montreal. It would ahve been like Ryan Smyth going to Calgary.
Smyth almost went to Calgary before Colorado gave him ridicuous money. Johnny Damon went to NYY, it happens all the time.

Monctonscout is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.