HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Is Antropov the solution?

View Poll Results: How much would you spend for Antropov? (1 year)
3 millions 22 14.01%
4 millions 44 28.03%
5 millions 4 2.55%
6 millions 1 0.64%
more than 6 millions 4 2.55%
I do not want Antropov 82 52.23%
Voters: 157. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-08-2009, 01:42 PM
  #76
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
You can't say the Habs are non-physical when they've finished in the top 5 for bodychecks in the last two seasons.

We weren't inconsistent when we didn't have a boatload of injuries in the previous season.

Many agree that the coaching system is what produced the results of this season. Without a good system, they still managed a good record before Lang got injured (27-15-6, 27-11-6 before the 4 game losing streak).

A good system and less injuries would've done wonders this season. Just the fact that they were looking really good when Kovy-Koivu and Tanguay got put together, 6 games before Markov got injured, shows that this team was capable of being really good.

As we wait for teams to unload some big contracts over the next two seasons, I wouldn't mind bringing back the core, because the next coach will probably be better, and they can't have as much bad luck as last season.

Also, you underated Lang's leadership, as the team seemed to have lost some leadership when he wasn'T there anymore.

As for being small, I totally not agree. The Habs were not even close to be the smallest team. In fact, in terms of weight, the Habs had one of the top 10 teams. IN terms of height, they were middle of the pack.

I do think that there are changes they could do, but they could do those while still putting Tanguay-Koivu and Kovy together again, and retaining Lang's services.

What should be modified first is the defense. Modify the top 4 to make it more solid. Especially in the passing department, get better puck movers on the D corps. This will help the offense that was already in place and dominated in 07-08.

Then when the time comes, make a move for a real #1 centerman, when a good deal will come along, and looking at certain team's situations, its only a matter of time before we can get one.
I still don't like what I'm seeing. Most of the time, there was just no interest/enthousiasm from the players. I want to see something different next year. I don't want to bulldozer the team, but some adjustment- both on offense and defense - should be made.

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 01:43 PM
  #77
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subbanator76 View Post
28. goals. while. playing. with. Stajan.

end of discussion. This guy is talented enough to fit our top-6.
So? Stajan is actually a very good player, and he's the smart playmaker on that line. I would take Stajan way before I would take Antropov.

Dominic Moore also produced with the Leafs. Should we get him, too? What about Darcy Tucker? He also scored 28 goals with the Leafs. Playing for the Leafs is relatively easy. There's no pressure to actually perform. The team has been a gigantic mess lately. The Leafs tend to blow leads because they play all out before the other team settles in to their game. The players rack up points, but then they get tired. The Leafs blow the game. How many times has that happened? The goal in Toronto never seems to be winning: coming in with a controlled game plan and executing it. It's just a collection of players, some of whom get more points by virtue of ice time.

It's never as simple as looking at the points.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 01:47 PM
  #78
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subbanator76 View Post
I still don't like what I'm seeing. Most of the time, there was just no interest/enthousiasm from the players. I want to see something different next year. I don't want to bulldozer the team, but some adjustment- both on offense and defense - should be made.
So we didn't have a good year. Get over it. Name me one team who looks enthusiastic when they're losing. Please. And we've been over this. Vancouver didn't have to overhaul their team to start winning again. They just got healthy. I don't expect to see Dallas overhaul their team next year, either. And they didn't look like they were trying so hard.

What do you want the players to do? They can't do things they can't do. A guy who's used to playing 15 minutes can't play a strong 20 minutes and look good. Or else he'd be a better player.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 02:00 PM
  #79
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
So we didn't have a good year. Get over it. Name me one team who looks enthusiastic when they're losing. Please. And we've been over this. Vancouver didn't have to overhaul their team to start winning again. They just got healthy. I don't expect to see Dallas overhaul their team next year, either. And they didn't look like they were trying so hard.

What do you want the players to do? They can't do things they can't do. A guy who's used to playing 15 minutes can't play a strong 20 minutes and look good. Or else he'd be a better player.
Sorry. I'm just not blindly in love with this team enough to actually beleive it already has all the ingredients to succeed and have a shot at the cup. When your team is led by 35 and 36 years old players, you're going nowhere. You have to count on a solid core, which we don't have.

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 02:04 PM
  #80
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subbanator76 View Post
Sorry. I'm just not blindly in love with this team enough to actually beleive it already has all the ingredients to succeed and have a shot at the cup. When your team is led by 35 and 36 years old players, you're going nowhere. You have to count on a solid core, which we don't have.
No, this team isn't Cup ready. But it doesn't mean you blow it up, either. Again, change for the sake of change is stupid.

There are a lot of good pieces in place. You just have to be patient and let Gainey build the team.

It's not like adding a bunch of players and shaking things up will automatically mean Stanley Cup, either. And not shaking things up actually works better than shaking things up. The best moves are the ones that are not made.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 02:26 PM
  #81
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
No, this team isn't Cup ready. But it doesn't mean you blow it up, either. Again, change for the sake of change is stupid.

There are a lot of good pieces in place. You just have to be patient and let Gainey build the team.

It's not like adding a bunch of players and shaking things up will automatically mean Stanley Cup, either. And not shaking things up actually works better than shaking things up. The best moves are the ones that are not made.
Hard to be patient when your GM seems to not have a clue about what he's doing.

Oh, and when there's nobody to lead the parade, your team sucks. When your core is based on Koivu and Kovalev and your offense future is based on the Kostitsyns, you're going nowhere.

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 02:28 PM
  #82
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,474
vCash: 500
I don't think Antropov is a bad player. If Lang can't come back, Antropov could fill that niche nicely. Or offer a bigger-body replacement for Plekanec. I think he'd become something of a whipping boy in Montreal pretty quickly, though. But anyway, the stumbling block will be pricetag here. I wouldn't mind having Antropov on my team. But I don't want him on a UFA contract, which is bound to overprice him by a solid margin. So, thanks but no thanks.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 02:31 PM
  #83
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I don't think Antropov is a bad player. If Lang can't come back, Antropov could fill that niche nicely. Or offer a bigger-body replacement for Plekanec. I think he'd become something of a whipping boy in Montreal pretty quickly, though. But anyway, the stumbling block will be pricetag here. I wouldn't mind having Antropov on my team. But I don't want him on a UFA contract, which is bound to overprice him by a solid margin. So, thanks but no thanks.
Exactly. It's a question of dollars. If Antropov wants to play for free, then fine. But he's just not the kind of player to waste money or effort chasing after. Not when your team could be getting much better players.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 02:32 PM
  #84
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
Anyway. I think we agree that we have many good elements. But this team has to get significant help for next season. You just can't resign the same old players, who'll all be one year older next year. With all the cap space we have, it would be stupid to just bring back the same guys and not look at what's better out there.

Now, is Antropov the best option? No, but he's a better option than many of the guys we currently have. My point of view.

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 02:36 PM
  #85
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subbanator76 View Post
Anyway. I think we agree that we have many good elements. But this team has to get significant help for next season. You just can't resign the same old players, who'll all be one year older next year. With all the cap space we have, it would be stupid to just bring back the same guys and not look at what's better out there.

Now, is Antropov the best option? No, but he's a better option than many of the guys we currently have. My point of view.
That's what I disagree with. Antropov is not better than anything we have. When did he prove he was better? Again, playing for the Leafs is not the same as playing for a competitive team. Put Antropov on a good team, and he'll be a 3rd liner.

When Antropov played for a somewhat competitive team, he was not impressive.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 03:20 PM
  #86
Mad Habber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs12max View Post
A floater do not get 60 points. And he can do better for sure.
Have you not watched any Montreal games the past few years. Kovalev is one of the worst ones and he gets his 60 points.

Mad Habber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 03:46 PM
  #87
Kikizaz
Registered User
 
Kikizaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,950
vCash: 500
Antropov is not who I would go after, not at all. I would rather resign Lang (i think the money should be spent elsewhere---> Ohlund and a good 3rd pairing guy) instead of Leafs castoffs.

Kikizaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 03:49 PM
  #88
TheCH*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,060
vCash: 500
I'd take Antropov which would almost offset the loss of Koivu(who i don't think wants back).

TheCH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 04:08 PM
  #89
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,111
vCash: 500
i wouldn't want him on a one year deal at all, but if so, no more than 3-4 million...

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 04:24 PM
  #90
Stiffler
Registered User
 
Stiffler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: St-Hubert
Country: Canada
Posts: 842
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Stiffler
I do not like Antropov, too streaky for my tastes. We need help down the middle, but I would spend my money elsewhere.

Stiffler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 05:14 PM
  #91
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,260
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subbanator76 View Post
I'd like those who answer this way to at least support their thoughts with an argument or two...
Excuse me? You the board police now?

If you want my reason, he is not the fastest, far from it actually. Laos as mentioned he is inconsistent and we have enough of that already. As i said I would not be against getting him but would prefer the team look at other options before hand, see what is available via trade etc. To be honest I would be worried of getting another Samsonov and we all know how well that worked for us.

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 07:41 PM
  #92
ibeck
 
ibeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
NO WAAAY. Montreal does not need any more of these players that play only half the games in the season if that. If he played so great for the rangers how come I'm not watching them in the second round now?

ibeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 08:32 PM
  #93
Sportacus
:)
 
Sportacus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,683
vCash: 50
I thought I'd chime in about Antropov's time with the Leafs if you guys don't mind.

He doesn't hit very often, but he is a beast when it comes to others trying to get the puck off of him. They often end up falling down from trying to knock him over. He's a good guy to have in front of the net on a PP, or to have playing down low in general. He's quite slow, but he is pretty good on the PK due to his long reach and his willingness to block shots. He does play with heart, but it's true that his goal scoring can be quite streaky. He can stick handle very well, and has a great shot, and great passing skills. In my opinion, he'd be best for teams with dire needs on the PP and PK (Leafs ). As for his production, I can tell you that it was not due to Stajan at all, (nor was Stajan's due to him, really).

And as for the Dominic Moore argument, he did well because he was the catalyst that got Jason Blake going. They really only did well when together, but Antropov didn't need to have the same line mates to produce.

__________________
Based on Japanese History
Sportacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 08:46 PM
  #94
Captain Coach
No Homers
 
Captain Coach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 76
vCash: 500
we don't need another loafer on the team.


Last edited by Captain Coach: 05-09-2009 at 01:18 AM.
Captain Coach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 10:26 PM
  #95
BulldogFever
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 280
vCash: 500
Dainius Zubrus 2.0.

BulldogFever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 10:36 PM
  #96
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,003
vCash: 500
Antropov is more of a winger than a center anyways and he's not that productive even with all the tools he have. He's also rather slow. 6 million for him would be an extreme overpayement, I wouldn't mind paying him 4 but we can probably get Lang cheaper for a year or two, he seems to want back here and at 39 (or is it 37?) he'll ask for 2 or 3 mill.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 11:44 PM
  #97
peperebougon*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,151
vCash: 500
Why does he have to be THE solution? He could be a welcomed addition to our team... get real people...the point is not who we want, it is who we want that wants to play here... He could fit the bill. Even if we don't get the top UFAs, second tier players can be really useful. We are on the verge of losing half the team, don't forget that.

peperebougon* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 11:46 PM
  #98
CPrice
Registered User
 
CPrice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,264
vCash: 500
Also lets not forget that up until this season he has always been very injury prone.

1999-00 TOR 66
2000-01 TOR 52
2001-02 TOR 11
2002-03 TOR 72
2003-04 TOR 62
2005-06 TOR 57
2006-07 TOR 54

Hes averaged 58 games in his 9 seasons in the NHL.
Therefore hes missing over 20 games a year on average which is never good when your paying a player say 4M a year.

CPrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 11:47 PM
  #99
peperebougon*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibeck View Post
NO WAAAY. Montreal does not need any more of these players that play only half the games in the season if that. If he played so great for the rangers how come I'm not watching them in the second round now?
Dumb statement...really dumb. Maybe because hockey is a team sport?

peperebougon* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2009, 11:48 PM
  #100
peperebougon*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPrice View Post
Also lets not forget that up until this season he has always been very injury prone.

1999-00 TOR 66
2000-01 TOR 52
2001-02 TOR 11
2002-03 TOR 72
2003-04 TOR 62
2005-06 TOR 57
2006-07 TOR 54

Hes averaged 58 games in his 9 seasons in the NHL.
Therefore hes missing over 20 games a year on average which is never good when your paying a player say 4M a year.
Good point...I wasn't aware of this...ouch!

peperebougon* is offline   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 02:29 PM.

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.