HFBoards

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

Boucher to Tampa

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2010, 10:43 PM
  #451
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
No need for niceties.
...okay then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
So here goes, superstition? Grab a clue MM...this isn't superstition, it's actually a proven psychology...
So your argument is that the Penguins whiffed on their scoring chances because they were psychologically distraught? I have trouble seeing it, they're a pretty pressure-tested club and were dominating the game heavily.

Although I do wonder about that Game 7. That did look like a panicked squad to me... and lo, the stats do reflect that they sucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
I do analyze what happened on the ice. The difference with me is, I'm not dependent on or fazed by shots on goal and other mostly useless stats.
All right, I won't be nice here. This smacks of watching the game and deciding what happens here based on the results and dismissing anything that doesn't actually support your biased perception as "useless stats".

Stats are not useless. Claiming they are may allow you to stay confortable with your illusions, but it doesn't change the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
So if you use logic, which you've carved out your niche here on, logic says: The Habs are a hockey team, Halak is a Hab, Halak stoned the Pens, therefore the Habs stoned the Pens .
Fair enough, except that -- and this is part of my point -- there's no way Halak can keep this up long-term. Not unless he's the reincarnation of Hasek with some Roy thrown in. I don't think it's fair to him to ask him to be the best goalie in NHL history, which is what he would need to be to pull off that level of goaltending consistently over the course of his career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
Yes...I know. I have a diploma of technology in computer systems from BCIT...Trust me, I fully understand the impact of technology....btw, know how to calculate the address space on a... ?
*eyes the Computer Science B.Sc. on the wall* Um, well, I just might actually. :geek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
That said, I know from experience that instincts, confidence, attitude, fear, intimidation and other intagibles are as important, if not more important, than statistics
Except that, if those things make you play better, the results should be visible on the ice and if they are, they will be reflected somewhere in the plethora of advanced stats that get collected nowadays. See, this is the key point in the whole intangibles vs. stats debate -- it's not orthogonal. If the intangibles have an effect on the game, the stats will pick it up.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 10:45 PM
  #452
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
MathMan, as a HABS fan has discredited any credit of Martin, and the team as whole and placed it solely on Halak and luck, you would be hard pressed to find a majority of Habs fans that would agree with the assessment, and rightfully so.
A view being unpopular doesn't make it wrong -- and I don't think anyone was going to expect the idea that "the Habs really weren't all that good" to be popular on a Habs board.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 11:30 PM
  #453
LesCanadiens
Registered User
 
LesCanadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Okanagan Baby!
Posts: 2,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem here is that we saw the same game, yet we have very different interpretations.

I'm not sure how I can put this nicely, so here goes: what I'm reading from you is a lot of superstition, really. We "had their number"? If anyone had the Pens' number, it was Halak, because otherwise, the Habs were getting their ***** handed to them. How is saying "we had their number" a better assessment than actually analyzing what happened on the ice? If there are psychological and emotional effects -- intangibles -- that affect the game, why aren't they reflected on the ice, where the stats would pick them up?

At some point, someone is going to have to explain to me how you can be said to outplay a team that's basically always owning the puck and taking dangerous shots from prime scoring areas while you aren't. Because I don't care if you count it with stats or just eyeball it, if you don't think that team is not being badly outplayed, then quite frankly I think you're just deluding yourself.

Or are you arguing that the Pens really did get all their scoring chances and just continually messed up on them for some intangible reason? Fine, that's debatable, but at that point I'm going to ask: how is that good team defense by the Habs, as opposed to the Pens shooting themselves in the foot? Because the Habs only have control over the former.



I'm not sure I agree -- and I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand anyway. I do know that without the science geeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, or a whole lot of real technological progress for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
...okay then.



a. So your argument is that the Penguins whiffed on their scoring chances because they were psychologically distraught? I have trouble seeing it, they're a pretty pressure-tested club and were dominating the game heavily.

Although I do wonder about that Game 7. That did look like a panicked squad to me... and lo, the stats do reflect that they sucked.



b. All right, I won't be nice here. This smacks of watching the game and deciding what happens here based on the results and dismissing anything that doesn't actually support your biased perception as "useless stats".

Stats are not useless. Claiming they are may allow you to stay confortable with your illusions, but it doesn't change the facts.




Fair enough, except that -- and this is part of my point -- there's no way Halak can keep this up long-term. Not unless he's the reincarnation of Hasek with some Roy thrown in. I don't think it's fair to him to ask him to be the best goalie in NHL history, which is what he would need to be to pull off that level of goaltending consistently over the course of his career.



*eyes the Computer Science B.Sc. on the wall* Um, well, I just might actually. :geek:



Except that, if those things make you play better, the results should be visible on the ice and if they are, they will be reflected somewhere in the plethora of advanced stats that get collected nowadays. See, this is the key point in the whole intangibles vs. stats debate -- it's not orthogonal. c. If the intangibles have an effect on the game, the stats will pick it up.


a. Nice way to phrase that answer in a feeble and transparent attempt to look down your nose at me and others. The shame is, you can't see the forest for the trees. It must be frustrating and boring looking at life in black and white, and 1's and 0's. The truth is, even heavily favored, stronger and more "capable" athletes have been crushed by mind-games...E.g. Ali vs Foreman. No stat detected Ali throwing his opponent(s) off with his antics both before the match and/or during. Go ahead, find the stat, I challenge you. We're humans, not computers.

b. I don't have any illusions, you do. You live in a world where there is no human factor, where everything can be measured in black and white stats....nothing is further from reality, so you are the one with illusions. Wake up.

c. That comment cements my winning argument against you. For you to say that the stats will pick up intangibles, such as intimidation, motivation, heart, character, drive etc., is just plain ridiculous.

If stats were the cats meow, then the Washington Capitals would had played the SJ Sharks in the final, with the Caps winning it all.

LesCanadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:07 AM
  #454
Bloumeister
Certifiable
 
Bloumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: in a padded cell
Posts: 5,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
The problem here is that we saw the same game, yet we have very different interpretations.

I'm not sure how I can put this nicely, so here goes: what I'm reading from you is a lot of superstition, really. We "had their number"? If anyone had the Pens' number, it was Halak, because otherwise, the Habs were getting their ***** handed to them. How is saying "we had their number" a better assessment than actually analyzing what happened on the ice? If there are psychological and emotional effects -- intangibles -- that affect the game, why aren't they reflected on the ice, where the stats would pick them up?

At some point, someone is going to have to explain to me how you can be said to outplay a team that's basically always owning the puck and taking dangerous shots from prime scoring areas while you aren't. Because I don't care if you count it with stats or just eyeball it, if you don't think that team is not being badly outplayed, then quite frankly I think you're just deluding yourself.

Or are you arguing that the Pens really did get all their scoring chances and just continually messed up on them for some intangible reason? Fine, that's debatable, but at that point I'm going to ask: how is that good team defense by the Habs, as opposed to the Pens shooting themselves in the foot? Because the Habs only have control over the former.



I'm not sure I agree -- and I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand anyway. I do know that without the science geeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, or a whole lot of real technological progress for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
...okay then.



a. So your argument is that the Penguins whiffed on their scoring chances because they were psychologically distraught? I have trouble seeing it, they're a pretty pressure-tested club and were dominating the game heavily.

Although I do wonder about that Game 7. That did look like a panicked squad to me... and lo, the stats do reflect that they sucked.



b. All right, I won't be nice here. This smacks of watching the game and deciding what happens here based on the results and dismissing anything that doesn't actually support your biased perception as "useless stats".

Stats are not useless. Claiming they are may allow you to stay confortable with your illusions, but it doesn't change the facts.



Fair enough, except that -- and this is part of my point -- there's no way Halak can keep this up long-term. Not unless he's the reincarnation of Hasek with some Roy thrown in. I don't think it's fair to him to ask him to be the best goalie in NHL history, which is what he would need to be to pull off that level of goaltending consistently over the course of his career.



*eyes the Computer Science B.Sc. on the wall* Um, well, I just might actually. :geek:



Except that, if those things make you play better, the results should be visible on the ice and if they are, they will be reflected somewhere in the plethora of advanced stats that get collected nowadays. See, this is the key point in the whole intangibles vs. stats debate -- it's not orthogonal. c. If the intangibles have an effect on the game, the stats will pick it up.



a. Nice way to phrase that answer in a feeble and transparent attempt to look down your nose at me and others. The shame is, you can't see the forest for the trees. It must be frustrating and boring looking at life in black and white, and 1's and 0's. The truth is, even heavily favored, stronger and more "capable" athletes have been crushed by mind-games...E.g. Ali vs Foreman. No stat detected Ali throwing his opponent(s) off with his antics both before the match and/or during. Go ahead, find the stat, I challenge you. We're humans, not computers.

b. I don't have any illusions, you do. You live in a world where there is no human factor, where everything can be measured in black and white stats....nothing is further from reality, so you are the one with illusions. Wake up.

c. That comment cements my winning argument against you. For you to say that the stats will pick up intangibles, such as intimidation, motivation, heart, character, drive etc., is just plain ridiculous.

If stats were the cats meow, then the Washington Capitals would had played the SJ Sharks in the final, with the Caps winning it all.
FFS, change the thread name already. Or get a room in a cheap hotel, buy some Diet Cott Root Beer and Cheetos, invite all the geeky stats-lovin' guys, prepare a neat lil' PowerPoint presentation with graphs and Excel sheets and ESPN cut-and-pasted stuff, and every single freaking zit-faced nerd will cream their pants, I'm sure. But stop torturing us with that broken record. This is worse than trolling.

This here is the thread where we're supposed to mourn Our Lord Savior Boucher. Have some respect for the Man With The Scar and stay away from here.

Somebody shoot me.


Bloumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 07:24 AM
  #455
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
a. Nice way to phrase that answer in a feeble and transparent attempt to look down your nose at me and others. The shame is, you can't see the forest for the trees. It must be frustrating and boring looking at life in black and white, and 1's and 0's. The truth is, even heavily favored, stronger and more "capable" athletes have been crushed by mind-games...
So... your argument is that the Penguins were psychologically distraught by the Habs' "mind-games"? And that's why their whiffed their shots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
E.g. Ali vs Foreman. No stat detected Ali throwing his opponent(s) off with his antics both before the match and/or during. Go ahead, find the stat, I challenge you. We're humans, not computers.
I'm not familiar at all with the stats collected in boxing so I really can't make a good argument here (my ignorance), but are you meaning to tell me that Ali throwing off Foreman would've helped Ali without making any difference to such things as punches thrown, punches landed, and things like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
I don't have any illusions, you do. You live in a world where there is no human factor, where everything can be measured in black and white stats....nothing is further from reality, so you are the one with illusions. Wake up.
There is a human factor. What you don't seem to grasp is if the human factor has an impact on the game, the stats will pick it up. The stats don't measure some subset of "objective" factors that is orthogonal to "human" factors like psychology or motivation. The stats measure what happened on the ice, regardless of the reason it did. If psychology or motivation makes you play better or worse, your stats will reflect it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
c. That comment cements my winning argument against you. For you to say that the stats will pick up intangibles, such as intimidation, motivation, heart, character, drive etc., is just plain ridiculous.
Dude... you think you're winning the argument when you have absolutely no case. To say the stats cannot pick up factors that are driven by intangible isn't just silly, it's logically nonsensical.

Stats measure what's observable. If the intangibles make a difference on the game, the stats will observe and measure that difference. If the intangibles make a difference that's not observable, well, I question how much of a difference it makes if you can't tell it's there...

Now don't go and hit a straw man that I'm claiming that intangibles don't have an effect. Intangibles, IMHO, absolutely have an effect. And it's a measurable effect, so the stats will measure it. If Cammy's drive and intensity leads to more puck possession, more scoring chances, more shots on goal, the stats will measure that. They may not be able to tell WHY it happen, but it will show that it DID. They may not be able to measure drive, intensity, heart, and so on, but they can measure their effect on game play.

To me your argumentation sounds like pure magical thinking. You're basically saying that there are things that happen that we can't see but really they change hockey games in invisible ways.

One more thing: "stats" aren't limited to the tiny bit of information you find in NHL.com and even less to goals-assists-points. If you don't see the effect of human factors in there, you're right, but that's because those stats are very coarse and very incomplete, so very uninformative. There's a wealth of additional data being collected on hockey that tells you a lot more.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 08:01 AM
  #456
LesCanadiens
Registered User
 
LesCanadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Okanagan Baby!
Posts: 2,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
So... your argument is that the Penguins were psychologically distraught by the Habs' "mind-games"? And that's why their whiffed their shots?



I'm not familiar at all with the stats collected in boxing so I really can't make a good argument here (my ignorance), but are you meaning to tell me that Ali throwing off Foreman would've helped Ali without making any difference to such things as punches thrown, punches landed, and things like that?



There is a human factor. What you don't seem to grasp is if the human factor has an impact on the game, the stats will pick it up. The stats don't measure some subset of "objective" factors that is orthogonal to "human" factors like psychology or motivation. The stats measure what happened on the ice, regardless of the reason it did. If psychology or motivation makes you play better or worse, your stats will reflect it.



Dude... you think you're winning the argument when you have absolutely no case. To say the stats cannot pick up factors that are driven by intangible isn't just silly, it's logically nonsensical.

Stats measure what's observable. If the intangibles make a difference on the game, the stats will observe and measure that difference. If the intangibles make a difference that's not observable, well, I question how much of a difference it makes if you can't tell it's there...

Now don't go and hit a straw man that I'm claiming that intangibles don't have an effect. Intangibles, IMHO, absolutely have an effect. And it's a measurable effect, so the stats will measure it. If Cammy's drive and intensity leads to more puck possession, more scoring chances, more shots on goal, the stats will measure that. They may not be able to tell WHY it happen, but it will show that it DID. They may not be able to measure drive, intensity, heart, and so on, but they can measure their effect on game play.

To me your argumentation sounds like pure magical thinking. You're basically saying that there are things that happen that we can't see but really they change hockey games in invisible ways.

One more thing: "stats" aren't limited to the tiny bit of information you find in NHL.com and even less to goals-assists-points. If you don't see the effect of human factors in there, you're right, but that's because those stats are very coarse and very incomplete, so very uninformative. There's a wealth of additional data being collected on hockey that tells you a lot more.
So Einstein, what stat measures intimidation? Or how about panic? You want a flaw in your so-called reasoning, that makes it all fall apart? Here is one, your stats would probably use some system decided upon by human or computer, for what constitutes a great scoring chance and separates it from just a good scoring chance.

So in the above scenario's, how do the stats differentiate an easy save, from a difficult save?

Do the stats take into account, whether the shooter has Chris Pronger, or MAB bearing down on him? Or, how about whether the shooter is in a slump, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn no matter from where in the scoring-area. So you'll try and say, AHA! The stats measure that in the players scoring stats, I say sure, OK smartazz...how about the goalie? How do the stats measure that the goalie had an easy save, vs a great save? How is a great save measured by stats, in other words?

You can't have it both ways just to suit your argument, MM. You can't say on one hand, that some guys analysis of HIS opinion, of what constitutes a great scoring chance is factual, and use that to say Pitt dominated us....and then on the other hand say what you saw on TV supports the stats, and therefore the stats confirm how the game or series actually went. The former is data based on someones opinion, and the latter is simply your opinion on the game you watched. So, how is either opinion more right than mine, or anyone elses?

So MM, you don't believe a goalie can have shooters "psyched out"?

There are too many gray areas...hockey isn't math. Math has no feelings and no emotions. Hockey is full of them...and ebb and tide, and flow, and psyche.

LesCanadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 09:04 AM
  #457
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
So Einstein, what stat measures intimidation? Or how about panic?
That's not my point... I'm sorry that I'm going to skip over the rest of your post for now, but it suddenly occurs to me we're not actually arguing two sides of the same point here; I can get back to it if you want me to after this.

Let me try to illustrate with an example.

Game 7, Habs-Pens. In that game, I honestly do believe the Pens panicked. I'm not sure what was the tipping point, but it struck me that they played horrible for the first 40 minutes and I thought it was a result of pressure combined with the Habs' early PP goal that completely threw them off their game until, at least, they scored their first goal.

Now, is there such a thing as a "panic" or "pressure" stat? No.

(At least, not that we've figured out how to measure yet, and there probably never will be.)

But the stats show that over those 40 minutes the Habs outchanced the Pens, carried the play, dominated possession, and that the Pens goaltending epic-failed so that Montreal ended up with a 4-0 lead midway through the game... and that was game over.

It doesn't mean I can prove it was panic or just the Habs eating their spinach before the game or whatever, but it was clear that the Pens were doing nothing good and the Habs were taking it to them. It's something I can point to and say "I believe this happened because of an intangible -- that the Pens panicked". The intangible affected the game in an observable way.

Now if I claimed "I think the Pens panicked" as a reason the Habs won Game 4, a game where the Pens led most of the way and the tying goal came off a bad-angle shot that went in off a defensemen, I would have much less of a leg to stand on.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 10:17 AM
  #458
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
A view being unpopular doesn't make it wrong -- and I don't think anyone was going to expect the idea that "the Habs really weren't all that good" to be popular on a Habs board.

True. An opinion also doesn't need to be right or wrong.

There's far too much black or white in your conclusions -- this usually succeeds in initiating the same extreme pov's from the posters that counter your opinions

For the record I agree with a lot of what you say to some degree a lot of the times - it's just not everything is 1+1 like you make it seem.

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 10:31 AM
  #459
Gary320
Moderator
 
Gary320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,630
vCash: 500
Hearing the press confrence, I don't know how good Boucher is as a coach, but as a human being he's a great speaker and seems very intelligent. The same can be said for Yzerman, who obviously is a great player.. hopefully a great GM.

Gary320 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 10:33 AM
  #460
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
True. An opinion also doesn't need to be right or wrong.
...but they can be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
There's far too much black or white in your conclusions -- this usually succeeds in initiating the same extreme pov's from the posters that counter your opinions
I think you're right -- I probably am being too stark about this (mea culpa), but I'm also faced by some people who have a very black-and-white opinion of things in the opposite direction.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 10:58 AM
  #461
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I think you're right
Nothing new there.

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 11:03 AM
  #462
Habsfan18
Global Moderator
The Future
 
Habsfan18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,095
vCash: 500
Still no sign of Ozymandias?

Hopefully this whole situation taught him a lesson. He acted like a complete know-it-all and basically called anyone who thought he may leave the org to take an NHL job stupid.

"If anyone thinks Boucher will leave, they don't know **** about him."

And calling everyone "kiddos" who overreact and make assumptions.

Funny ****.

Habsfan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 11:07 AM
  #463
saints96
Registered User
 
saints96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsfan18 View Post
Still no sign of Ozymandias?

Hopefully this whole situation taught him a lesson. He acted like a complete know-it-all and basically called anyone who thought he may leave the org to take an NHL job stupid.

"If anyone thinks Boucher will leave, they don't know **** about him."

And calling everyone "kiddos" who overreact and make assumptions.

Funny ****.
ya that was hilarious.. i was expecting him to at least make one post in this thread, i guess i was wrong. We should make a poll, do you think Ozymandias will make a post in this thread after being completly humiliated and owned!?

saints96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:02 PM
  #464
Pascal
Registered User
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,467
vCash: 500
boucher is on NHL Live right now

Pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:13 PM
  #465
Kingbobert
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kingbobert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Greece
Posts: 4,656
vCash: 500
i'm still very sad about him leaving...
means we're really stuck with JM

at the same time i'm happy for him...

Kingbobert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:22 PM
  #466
Little Nilan
Registered User
 
Little Nilan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Praha
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 8,209
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Little Nilan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsfan18 View Post
Still no sign of Ozymandias?

Hopefully this whole situation taught him a lesson. He acted like a complete know-it-all and basically called anyone who thought he may leave the org to take an NHL job stupid.

"If anyone thinks Boucher will leave, they don't know **** about him."

And calling everyone "kiddos" who overreact and make assumptions.

Funny ****.
I think he's trying to understand the thought process, to take the time to analyze the situation for what it was. It's gonna take a while.

Either that, or stocking food stupplies for december 2011.

Little Nilan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 02:42 PM
  #467
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty hates Sergei View Post
I think he's trying to understand the thought process, to take the time to analyze the situation for what it was. It's gonna take a while.

Either that, or stocking food stupplies for december 2011.
I think he is gonna come back and post with a 3rd position on the subject. The 1st two didn't work it's never too late for a 3rd.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 07:05 PM
  #468
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,587
vCash: 500
I'm pretty surprised Boucher hasn't brought his assisstants to Tampa. He said they still belong to the Habs.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 08:20 PM
  #469
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I'm pretty surprised Boucher hasn't brought his assisstants to Tampa. He said they still belong to the Habs.
I'm REALLY surprised about it if it doesn't happen. As far as belonging to the Habs, we will see if Raymond is back. Raymond went to the Dogs BECAUSE of Boucher. I wouldn't be surprised to see him back with McGill if Boucher don't take him.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2010, 10:57 AM
  #470
CanadienErrant*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Cook Islands
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I'm pretty surprised Boucher hasn't brought his assisstants to Tampa. He said they still belong to the Habs.
He could not do that. They are under contract with the Habs and they need also permission to negotiate with any other NHL team.

I just hope the Habs will officially offer the head coach job (in Hamilton) to one of them: Raymond or Lacroix.

John Chabot would also be a good option.

CanadienErrant* 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 01:40 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.