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

Ryan McDonagh

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-30-2009, 07:27 PM
  #1
Boulette Cannon
Registered User
 
Boulette Cannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,312
vCash: 500
Are we overrating McDonagh?

Some people thought we was a future 1st pairing D and some think he has already reached his full potential.

Discuss.

Boulette Cannon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:29 PM
  #2
Le Tricolore
Boo! Booooo!
 
Le Tricolore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 27,616
vCash: 137
I think many people are overrating him, thinking he'd be a Chelios, or something like that. I don't doubt that he could become a future #2 or #3 defenseman, but from that I've read, I'd be kind of shocked if he turned into a number one guy.

Le Tricolore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:29 PM
  #3
Rgolt
Registered User
 
Rgolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: montreal, qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIGGINS! View Post
Some people thought we was a future 1st pairing D and some think he has already reached his full potential.

Discuss.
no1 even reaches half there potential when there 20 years old...especially when they havnt even played a game in the ahl let alone the nhl

Rgolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:29 PM
  #4
Bryzga lol*
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
There could very well be a reason why they traded him away. I can't imagine Bob pulling the trigger without consulting Timmons.

Bryzga lol* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:30 PM
  #5
DaHabMan
Registered User
 
DaHabMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lasalle
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,241
vCash: 500
i dont see anything wrong with him being a top 4 d-man instead of a top2. So what if his offense wasnt developing like they hoped, at least he was solid in his own zone and could skate the puck. He could've been a number 4 d-man who eats up minutes, ala hamrlik but just younger. I would have had no problems whatsoever with that.

DaHabMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:30 PM
  #6
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,294
vCash: 500
No we are overrating Timmins, as usual.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:31 PM
  #7
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,854
vCash: 500
hell yes we are overrating him


Last edited by Mathletic: 06-30-2009 at 07:38 PM.
Mathletic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:32 PM
  #8
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,033
vCash: 500
Well, lets hope he's the next Balej...

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:32 PM
  #9
Heaters not lazt*
 
Heaters not lazt*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,905
vCash: 500
I hope not. I just traded for him in the FA game

Heaters not lazt* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:33 PM
  #10
DaHabMan
Registered User
 
DaHabMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lasalle
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,241
vCash: 500
i dont have a problem with him being a top4 instead of a top 2. He seemed real solid in his own zone and so what if his offense wasnt developing like they hoped it would. I would take good defensive d-man who could skate with the puck anytime on my team. A number 4 who eats up minutes, like i read he was slated to do, can be valuable. He could have been hamrlik but younger and cheaper.

EDIT: oops double post


Last edited by DaHabMan: 06-30-2009 at 07:50 PM.
DaHabMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:34 PM
  #11
googlymoogly
Registered User
 
googlymoogly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,421
vCash: 500
I remember the 90's all too well when we would trade away our young players or prospects as add ins to get another player. We traded away Tucker, Conroy, LeClair as add ins and it put us back years and we are just reaching the point of being rebuilt only to toss away a possible 1-2 Dman in McDo as an ad in. It is not like Sather had multiple teams lined up ready to take Gomez's bloated contract. We should of at least gotten NY's 1st rounder in 2010.

What scares me is if Gainey tosses Subban in another trade. Our D corps will be depleted again.

googlymoogly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:36 PM
  #12
crazyd
Canada is hockey
 
crazyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,087
vCash: 500
I sure hope that we are overrating him...

crazyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:40 PM
  #13
Schooner Guy
Registered User
 
Schooner Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by googlymoogly View Post
I remember the 90's all too well when we would trade away our young players or prospects as add ins to get another player. We traded away Tucker, Conroy, LeClair as add ins and it put us back years and we are just reaching the point of being rebuilt only to toss away a possible 1-2 Dman in McDo as an ad in. It is not like Sather had multiple teams lined up ready to take Gomez's bloated contract. We should of at least gotten NY's 1st rounder in 2010.
Great post. Houle would always throw in a prospect to complete a trade. The only difference is that our drafting was so terrible during the Houle era that we didn't replenish the cupboards and they got bare very quickly. At least Timmins has been drafting well especially in terms of quantity.

I have also commented in a few threads that Sather should have been compensating us with a prospect for taking that contract off his hands and freeing him to go after free agents he covets (who might be the same ones that we covet).

Schooner Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:47 PM
  #14
Souffle
A soupçon of nutmeg
 
Souffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Le Creuset
Country: France
Posts: 3,484
vCash: 500
I don't know if we're overrating him in terms of upside, but he was still one of our top prospects. In fact (or internet fiction), he was number 7 on Timmins' List for the 2007 draft.

Souffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:50 PM
  #15
Shabutie
Registered User
 
Shabutie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Portugal
Posts: 15,640
vCash: 500
We've read articles in the past saying that he hadn't progressed... maybe Timmins told Gainey to send McDonagh off before Fischer?

Shabutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:56 PM
  #16
Garo
Registered User
 
Garo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montréal
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,528
vCash: 500
I think it's funny that we'd rather keep Weber and Subban.

Garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:57 PM
  #17
Coldplay
Courage
 
Coldplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,352
vCash: 500
HF says he's a #1A AT WORST.

I am furious about this, I love Gomez, but WHY GIVE HIM UP.

Coldplay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 07:59 PM
  #18
Ross MacLochness
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,774
vCash: 500
It's obvious Sather wanted one of the Big 3 (Subban, Weber, McDonagh) and out of those 3, in my opinion anyway, McDonagh is the least likely to become an NHLer, and probably has the lowest ceiling. I'm not saying he won't become a player, I actually think he will, but to me Weber and PK are just better bets, and have higher potential.

I'm not sure why Gainey couldn't get Sather off these guys though. Why not 2 of O'Bryne/Emelin/Valentenko/Carle. Surely that could've been enough to make this trade.

I've only seen McD at the WJC, and I wasn't impressed with his strength. Plus he didn't make it as an 18 year old.

Ross MacLochness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 08:02 PM
  #19
DaHabMan
Registered User
 
DaHabMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lasalle
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross MacLochness View Post
It's obvious Sather wanted one of the Big 3 (Subban, Weber, McDonagh) and out of those 3, in my opinion anyway, McDonagh is the least likely to become an NHLer, and probably has the lowest ceiling. I'm not saying he won't become a player, I actually think he will, but to me Weber and PK are just better bets, and have higher potential.

I'm not sure why Gainey couldn't get Sather off these guys though. Why not 2 of O'Bryne/Emelin/Valentenko/Carle. Surely that could've been enough to make this trade.

I've only seen McD at the WJC, and I wasn't impressed with his strength. Plus he didn't make it as an 18 year old.
the thing is we shouldnt have been the ones adding to the deal, the rangers should have been the ones to add a prospect or a 1st rounder to get rid of gomez

DaHabMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 08:13 PM
  #20
Shabutie
Registered User
 
Shabutie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Portugal
Posts: 15,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldplay View Post
HF says he's a #1A AT WORST.

I am furious about this, I love Gomez, but WHY GIVE HIM UP.
HF says.....So what?

Bob McKenzie could say that he's a #1A at worst (how is that even possible?), doesn't mean he will achieve that potential...

Shabutie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 08:15 PM
  #21
dcyhabs
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 706
vCash: 500
McDonagh's ceiling is lower offensively but he is the habs prospect who is most certain to be an NHL regular. Weber has shown he can play, but he has size issues. Subban looks fantastic so far, and I'm glad to have him instead of McDonagh if we had to trade one of them, but his game may not translate to the AHL or the NHL (I think it will, but we will see).

McDonagh has size, speed, and defense going for him. He will be playing for the Rangers long after Gomez retires. The question is whether he will be on a steady third pairing or a dynamic first pairing. Have to hope the Rangers took the wrong prospect again.

dcyhabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 08:16 PM
  #22
Le Tricolore
Boo! Booooo!
 
Le Tricolore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 27,616
vCash: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garo View Post
I think it's funny that we'd rather keep Weber and Subban.
Have you not followed Subban over the past two seasons?

Le Tricolore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 08:17 PM
  #23
eightyseven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,502
vCash: 500
I don't understand how he can be a #1 d-man. From his NCAA numbers, it looks like he's basically a defensive, stay-at-home d-man. I saw him at the World Juniors and I was not impressed. I thought Kevin Shattenkirk looked better. I think McDonagh is another Komisarek/Volchenkov kind of player. They are more suited to the 2nd pairing or lower.

eightyseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 08:20 PM
  #24
TheCH*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyseven View Post
I don't understand how he can be a #1 d-man. From his NCAA numbers, it looks like he's basically a defensive, stay-at-home d-man. I saw him at the World Juniors and I was not impressed. I thought Kevin Shattenkirk looked better. I think McDonagh is another Komisarek/Volchenkov kind of player. They are more suited to the 2nd pairing or lower.
Every team needs those kinds of players. Just asked Bob Gainey, who i am sure offered the moon to Komisarek..

TheCH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2009, 08:21 PM
  #25
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shabutie View Post
HF says.....So what?

Bob McKenzie could say that he's a #1A at worst (how is that even possible?), doesn't mean he will achieve that potential...
no, but it is a reflection on how people in the hockey know rate his potential.

would you have been happy for a busto-mcdo trade straight up? No... Why? Because Busto is a fringe prospect rated poorly by those who know.

wether McDo turns out good, great or a complete bust, right now he's still viewed as a top pairing blue chip prospect.

that's why its insane that he was included in a deal for Gomez, a guy that is very good, not great, and who is only a marginal upgrade on Koivu, at twice the price.

Miller Time 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 11:49 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.