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

Scouting prospects

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-12-2004, 12:09 AM
  #26
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by db23
The team still has a lot to show for those deals. Roy=Thibault=Hackett=Sundstrom. Malakov=Souray, Recchi=Zubrus=Zednik, Damphousse=Hossa and Thinel.

Dykhuis and Bouillon are still around as free agent signings.

Draft picks - Ward, Hainsey, Balej=Kovalev, Garon=Bonk, Shasby, D.C=Linden=Bulis and Perezhogin, Ribeiro, Ryder, Markov.

I can't be bothered to track everything down, but a substantial portion of the present team can be traced back to Houle's trades or picks, and as I said if you miss the old guys he traded away, all you need is money to get them back.
You are wasting "Montreal"'s time with this nonsense, but it only builds Andre Savard's case to argue this case. And I am a HUGE Andre Savard fan.

1. The Sundstrom deal was made by Savard.
2. The Souray deal was basically made by Lemaire.
3. The Damphousse deal was probably Lemaire as well, though Damphousse did very well for San Jose.
4. Dykhuis has been mediocre to awful.
5. Bouillon is a great story, but he's mediocre. He does hit though, which is a nice change.
6. Draft picks - Ward (awful)
7. Hainsey (awful to this point, we'll see if he grows up)
8. Balej (lots of holes in his game, we'll see. I'm rooting for him, but he's a coward.)
9. Garon=Bonk (goalie, that's a crapshoot)
10. Shasby (so?)
11. Linden. The Linden deal wasn't too bad because the draft in 99 sucked, but it was AS who got Zednik and Bulis for him. We all know Linden wasn't the same after his knee injury with Vancouver, so the Houle trade was stupid.
12. Lucky: Ribeiro, Ryder, Markov.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 12:10 AM
  #27
Habsolument
Registered User
 
Habsolument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: St-Lambert, Qc
Country: Poland
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by db23
I'm fine with things as long as posters don't continually slag Rejean Houle and pump up Savard. The evidence that is in doesn't support that myth at all. If anything, it should be the other way round.
"Pump up Savard"? I havn't seen many people "pump up Savard" while I was on this board. I've read people say that he is a good talent evaluater and a bad negotiator, which is true. And this claim is nearer the truth than your claim that he was awful or worse than Houle. I'm sorry for you if you don't understand why Perreault, Gilmour, Dackell, Juneau, etc were signed because it's quite obvious. We had guys like Craig Darby, Jim Campbell, Juha Lind and Johan Witehall in our lineup. You don't need to know more than that. We had a sucky team (plagued with injuries) formed of AHLers and Savard got us NHLers. You can't expect top notch players to sign with you when you're so bad. As Dan stated AS also changed alot of the personnel. Well it's also quite laughable that you don't even give a mere 3 years to Savards' prospect to see their development while you compare them to guys drafted in 96.

Habsolument is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 12:42 AM
  #28
db23
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
Yeah, every bad move and draft pick was made by Houle between 1995 and 2000, while every good move and draft pick was made by Lemaire. Funny how that works out. Jacques just had to sit on his houseboat in Florida and pick up the phone now and then to fix up all of Reggie's mistakes.

However you slice it, the cheap free agents that Houle signed like Zholtok, Petrov, Dykhuis, Bouillon, etc., somehow won more games than the "NHL quality" free agents with bigger contracts like Juneau, Quintal, Dackell, McKay, Gilmour that Savard signed.

Also, the teams Houle supervised were usually without half of their top players at any given time due to injury in case you forgot. Savard won less often with more money and a much healthier team.

db23 is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 02:27 AM
  #29
NewHabsEra*
 
NewHabsEra*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by db23
Look it up yourself. If you can't find it, perhaps someone else might be able to direct you.
Maybe are you shy to name them...

Except Markov... Can you name me only one established player still active in the NHL that has been drafted by Houle?

You certainly have guys like Ribeiro and Ryder that just had a pretty solid season but it was their first one, they are still not established althought promising especially in Ryder's case... they strangely took a while to develop too, what occured under Savard' area as the Habs GM by the way! Then you have Balej, Hossa and Hainsey that could turn in solid NHLers but still, it remains to prove... I personnally think Balej is a lock to become a solid top 6 foward, I also expect Hossa become a nice second line winger and I didnt lost all my hopes about Hainsey to become a great PP specialist in the NHL...

Houle has been the Habs GM for about what? 5 years if I'm not wrong...

Within 5 years, it gaves us a good #3 defenseman in Markov

A decent second line center in Ribeiro having some big weakness that make his future uncertain with us

A solid second line winger in Ryder

A potential nice second line winger in Hossa

A great top 6 foward in Balej

Ward... fourth liner

Finnally a still uncertain prospect with excellent upside in Hainsey

When you look at this, its not so bad but to me Houle has been lucky that Ryder and Markov become the players they are now considering their late overall selection... Also thanks to Savard to have built a competitive farm were its easier to progress and where both Markov, Ward and Ryder developped..

Ok, now supposing all those guys become established NHLers one day, it would give us 7 NHLers over the 5 years Houle were GM... Fine, take a look at Savard's work now..

While I will agree its very early to make such jugement about the most recent years drafts, let me give you some signifiant players' names that just cant miss the boat.

First you have Komisarek...

Contrary at what you say, Savard likely did'nt plan to pick Mikko and Ive a link to prove this: http://www.rds.ca/canadien/chronique...N3B30BB0E.html

If ever you cant read french, it basically says that the organisation would'nt take in consideration the fact that Mikko is Saku's brother, they were looking for the best player avalaible and that Tuomo Rutuu was likely higher on their list! So why did'nt Savard pick Rutuu over Komisarek at #7 overall if they felt he was better than Mikko? You just have to read between the lines that Savard was even higher on Komisarek than Rutuu.

Second come Perezhogin... Im not concerned about your ********, every knowledge posters on any HF boards will say you that Perezhogin is a top level prospect... Gainey isnt planning to make some pressure on Bettman for fun... Perezhogin has developped as a solid top line material player

Third come Plekanec... selected after Milroy in the third round, Pleks has put some very impressive numbers at his first Pro year centering the third line on a very strong team... the year after Pleks did'nt just improved over the last year, he was a dominant player all the season along creating scoring chances after scoring chances and playing a great 2-way game, he even been selected for the AHL All star game... (Do you seriously expect Milroy to do same next year? lol) To me Plekanec is a NHL surefire..

You have at least 3 quality NHLers only from this draft and there is still hope with Archer..

2002: You have Chris Higgins, another surefire that you can count him in... Lambert is another solid prospect, he progressed extremmely well over the last year playing for Vigneault.. Its too early to evaluate his chances to play in the NHL one day but one thing is sure, this kid could surprise alot next season with the Bulldogs, he has the size and very nice set of skills.. Korneev has represented his country 3 straight years at the WJC, you never know how well he could do in NA.. Just look at Markov's way... Ferland still can become NHL material.. He has the attitude and determination to get there one day...

2003: What it takes to you more than Gainey' so great comments about Kostitsyn' skills and attitude? Everybody in the world that SAW him play are amazed by his top level skills... You are the only one trying to convince yourself he is a bust using your ******** stats to prove it... Its not laughable, its pathetic!

You can bet your money on Lapierre and OByrn to reach the NHL one day even with the little I saw them play.. Then comes players like Urquhart and Locke who have huge amount of skills but still alot of improvement to do in several areas..

There is just no comparaison about Houle's past drafting and Savard's ones... Houle has scrapped several first round selections and been lucky that some projects like Ribeiro, Ryder and Markov turn in solid prospects at some point.

Now if you want to talk about Houle's team destruction... Not tonight sorry, all I can say for the moment is that I know he has'nt had as much money as Savard has but when you have a such team in your hands, its impossible to destroy it more than what he did...

On another side, Savard took in hands an AHL team to turn it in a competitive one with a little more budget... He stole the Caps acquiring Zednik + Bulis + Perezhogin for an overpaid Linden and an inconsistent winger in Zubrus... Both Zednik and Bulis were very cheap and brought some energy to the team, he then signed some free agents to fill some temporary spots awaiting the kids arrive...He also took some minor risks in the goal to improve our pathetic top 6... such as trading an average third liner like Asham for Chow, trading a pick to acquire Berezin...

I remember when Houle and Vigneault got fired, every journalists and "experts" were saying we would have to wait about 10 years to rebuild a competitive team...

Twice we made the playoffs in 4 years since and we could be as much competitive as a team like Ottawa as soon as next season...

Sure that Gillet helped us alot, but you are dreaming multi colors if you think Houle could have do near as much as what Savard did... Houle did'nt know what to do with money anyway, he acquired a 5 millions third line center to play with a bunch of AHL linemates, enough said?


Last edited by NewHabsEra*: 08-12-2004 at 12:53 PM.
NewHabsEra* is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 07:08 AM
  #30
Stefan_Latulippe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewHabsArea
Please db23, refresh my memorie... Could you name me all the players Houle has drafted that have played in the NHL one day?
Andrei Markov, Mike Ribeiro and Michael Ryder are the one I can name right now without looking on the internet.

Stefan_Latulippe is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 07:18 AM
  #31
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,551
vCash: 500
FWIW, I don't see much point in debating "Houle's draft record" vs. Savard's. I don't think anybody would claim that Houle had much to do with the draft, whereas folks generally acknowledge that Savard has a wider interest in prospect evaluation and development. (It would be more appropriate to argue Mondou or Dorion's record vs. Savard, wouldn't it?)

It's kind of a totally null argument. Houle didn't draft Mike Ryder. Would Houle even still be sitting at the draft table on Day 2?

Beyond that, Savard's record is entirely unfinished as most of his prospects are still in the pipeline.

There's nothing to argue yet. I'm probably not the biggest Houle basher going, he was just another in Corey's desperate "revive tradition" hirings, and to be honest, I felt like he at least managed to tread water in the position better than I ever expected he would. That's no substitute for having actual qualified hockey personnel who could (and have) worked for other successful teams in the league, which Savard (and now Gainey) has, however.


Last edited by Blind Gardien: 08-12-2004 at 07:23 AM.
Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 12:13 PM
  #32
db23
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
The only point I was trying to make is that under Houle's guidance the team produced 15 players in 5 years from the draft who played in the NHL. The average of 3 per season is the landmark of "success" according to the original post in this thread. That number could get a bit higher as the years go by, but it certainly isn't going to get lower.

db23 is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 12:32 PM
  #33
NewHabsEra*
 
NewHabsEra*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by db23
The only point I was trying to make is that under Houle's guidance the team produced 15 players in 5 years from the draft who played in the NHL. The average of 3 per season is the landmark of "success" according to the original post in this thread. That number could get a bit higher as the years go by, but it certainly isn't going to get lower.
Dont you think its more indicative to talk about prospects becoming established in the NHL instead playing only a few games?.... what several prospects do at least once in their live.

NewHabsEra* is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 12:41 PM
  #34
db23
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewHabsArea
Dont you think its more indicative to talk about prospects becoming established in the NHL instead playing only a few games?.... what several prospects do at least once in their live.
Go back and READ the first post. That is what the whole discussion revolves around. The standards of "success" are set out there. Montreal met those standards under Rejean Houle.

db23 is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 12:44 PM
  #35
bopeep
Registered User
 
bopeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: habcouver
Posts: 613
vCash: 500
Question Dan. In your post you omitted Jon Gleed. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts regarding his chances.

bopeep is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 01:01 PM
  #36
Capitano
Registered User
 
Capitano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,400
vCash: 500
Interesting argument here...

I always felt the Rejean was a little shy to be a GM. It just always seemed that GM's like Lamoriello and Lacroix were able to take advantage of him. db23 brought up that Rejean turned players that are now UFA's into assets...but what he didn't do was keep us competitive in the mean-time. Sure anybody can trade their best players for draft picks and then draft a player and get lucky that the guy pans out. But can you do it and still stay competitive, that's the real question.

Rejean gave away Damphousse, Recchi, Roy, Turgeon, Keane, Malakhov, oh my GOD! Just look at those players that he gave away! Sure you could make an argument that they turned Recchi into Zednik, but not before we stunk it up for 4 years! Meanwhile, Mark keeps plugging away getting his 60-70 points per season playing two-way hockey, being a professional that anybody would want on their team...

I definitely feel that Rejean definitely was a good talent evaluator, but there is more to a hockey player than talent. Even Andre has made his mistakes there, but Andre definitely righted our ship that's for sure. He made our team competitive again. He brought in players that helped the cause. He did steer our ship into the right direction.

So I'd say that Rejean was a good scout but not a good GM, and Andre was a better GM than Houle but still a bad GM as well. Being a GM requires you to be good at everything. BG is the best GM we've had in awhile...he trusts his scouting staff to lean towards certain players, but make no mistake, the mandate from BG is there. He has stressed attitude, teamwork, hard-work, as attributes that all of his players should have. He wants the players to think of each other as family. He wants the players to play for each other, to play for their jersey.

In the end, we went through a VERY bad period with Rejean as GM. It was definitely the lowest we have every been as a franchise (at least from when I was born anyway). Andre did right the ship, but BG has been the biggest turning point.

Cap

Capitano is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 01:53 PM
  #37
db23
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitano
Interesting argument here...

I always felt the Rejean was a little shy to be a GM. It just always seemed that GM's like Lamoriello and Lacroix were able to take advantage of him. db23 brought up that Rejean turned players that are now UFA's into assets...but what he didn't do was keep us competitive in the mean-time. Sure anybody can trade their best players for draft picks and then draft a player and get lucky that the guy pans out. But can you do it and still stay competitive, that's the real question.

Rejean gave away Damphousse, Recchi, Roy, Turgeon, Keane, Malakhov, oh my GOD! Just look at those players that he gave away! Sure you could make an argument that they turned Recchi into Zednik, but not before we stunk it up for 4 years! Meanwhile, Mark keeps plugging away getting his 60-70 points per season playing two-way hockey, being a professional that anybody would want on their team...

I definitely feel that Rejean definitely was a good talent evaluator, but there is more to a hockey player than talent. Even Andre has made his mistakes there, but Andre definitely righted our ship that's for sure. He made our team competitive again. He brought in players that helped the cause. He did steer our ship into the right direction.

So I'd say that Rejean was a good scout but not a good GM, and Andre was a better GM than Houle but still a bad GM as well. Being a GM requires you to be good at everything. BG is the best GM we've had in awhile...he trusts his scouting staff to lean towards certain players, but make no mistake, the mandate from BG is there. He has stressed attitude, teamwork, hard-work, as attributes that all of his players should have. He wants the players to think of each other as family. He wants the players to play for each other, to play for their jersey.

In the end, we went through a VERY bad period with Rejean as GM. It was definitely the lowest we have every been as a franchise (at least from when I was born anyway). Andre did right the ship, but BG has been the biggest turning point.

Cap
Maybe you forgot that the team Houle took over with all of those "stars" in the lineup had the worst record of any Montreal team in about 30 years. Plus they started off the next year losing 6 straight games before that fat guy with the smoking turd in his mouth was finally fired.

db23 is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 03:28 PM
  #38
montreal
Moderator
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Greenland
Posts: 25,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bopeep
Question Dan. In your post you omitted Jon Gleed. I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts regarding his chances.


Gleed is a decent prospect, similar to Ryan Glenn in that he has decent size, was starting to show more confidence in his offensive game, since the play the left wing lock at Cornell, and are a very defensive team, don't expect big numbers from him. I know I'll get to see Gleed/O'Byrne a few times next year, so I'll be keeping an eye on him. He'll be a junior next year, although I'm still shocked by this pick, as I didn't think any team would draft him (after having a tough time getting ice time as a freshman, and not putting up numbers this year) I would have considered drafting someone else and signing Cornell's Charile Cook, who is not big but skilled offenisvely. But we'll see what he does over the next 2 years at CU.

montreal is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 05:10 PM
  #39
bopeep
Registered User
 
bopeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: habcouver
Posts: 613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal
Gleed is a decent prospect, similar to Ryan Glenn in that he has decent size, was starting to show more confidence in his offensive game, since the play the left wing lock at Cornell, and are a very defensive team, don't expect big numbers from him. I know I'll get to see Gleed/O'Byrne a few times next year, so I'll be keeping an eye on him. He'll be a junior next year, although I'm still shocked by this pick, as I didn't think any team would draft him (after having a tough time getting ice time as a freshman, and not putting up numbers this year) I would have considered drafting someone else and signing Cornell's Charile Cook, who is not big but skilled offenisvely. But we'll see what he does over the next 2 years at CU.
Thank you. Also, I know that there have been some quotes attributed to Savard & Timmons regarding Chipchura & Yemelin but I'm wondering if you've seen anything else? Last year I recall Timmons talking about picks a little deeper in the draft (O'Byrne's skating, the fact that Locke was still available in the 4th, etc.) I guess what I'm asking for is some sort of justification from those responsible for the choices that we made (i.e. "just wait till you see this Grabovsky kid!" or "Yeah, we talked to Streit and he'll be in N. America in a year....."

bopeep is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 07:43 PM
  #40
montreal
Moderator
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Greenland
Posts: 25,856
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bopeep
Thank you. Also, I know that there have been some quotes attributed to Savard & Timmons regarding Chipchura & Yemelin but I'm wondering if you've seen anything else? Last year I recall Timmons talking about picks a little deeper in the draft (O'Byrne's skating, the fact that Locke was still available in the 4th, etc.) I guess what I'm asking for is some sort of justification from those responsible for the choices that we made (i.e. "just wait till you see this Grabovsky kid!" or "Yeah, we talked to Streit and he'll be in N. America in a year....."

No nothing, the only thing I read was Timmins saying they will use Streit as a backup for the NHL if they need him. And that they went with Wyman cause a scout in the organization coached him and thinks highly of him.

From what it appears, the '04 wasn't a strong draft and more average in overall skilled players. Next years draft is already looking like the '03 draft or better! We may not get much out of this draft, time will tell, but Chipchura looks like a solid prospect who could fill a role on the team down the road. After that who knows, hopefully Yemelin or Wyman or one of the others shows a lot of progress.

montreal is offline  
Old
08-12-2004, 09:03 PM
  #41
Capitano
Registered User
 
Capitano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by db23
Maybe you forgot that the team Houle took over with all of those "stars" in the lineup had the worst record of any Montreal team in about 30 years. Plus they started off the next year losing 6 straight games before that fat guy with the smoking turd in his mouth was finally fired.
Ah yes, but like you said before, they were unhealthy. I'm not blaming Rejean for our lousy season, I just think that he could have done a better job of making us competitive in the seasons that he was our GM. Ok so he "inherited" a bad team...but it's his job as GM to fix it.

Cap

Capitano is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:14 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.