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

X - Plekanec - X

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-09-2012, 05:21 PM
  #126
Lebowski
Registered User
 
Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm pretty sure those numbers are out of whack. I read recently that Stamkos put on 20 pounds with Gary Roberts' group. There's no way he's not 200+ pounds. He's got to weigh more than 188. I also think that Parise is probably not 5'11.

Anyways... I'm glad we won't be getting him.
You're glad we won't be getting Parise because he's, in your opinion, too small? Have you lost your mind?

He'd be hands down the best forward to lace them up as a Habs in the last decade.

Lebowski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 05:24 PM
  #127
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm pretty sure those numbers are out of whack. I read recently that Stamkos put on 20 pounds with Gary Roberts' group. There's no way he's not 200+ pounds. He's got to weigh more than 188. I also think that Parise is probably not 5'11.

Anyways... I'm glad we won't be getting him.
so you think Stamkos is heavier than listed, and Parise is shorter than listed... pretty convenient.

in any case, even if Stamkos is ~200pds, 2inches/5pds difference (assuming Parise is as listed), is still not a significant weight or size difference, and certainly not enough to consider one player "big enough" and the other "too small", at least not at a height/weight that keeps both around the league average.


I'm glad you have a crystal ball, care to let me know what the winning lottomax pick this weekend will be?

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 05:28 PM
  #128
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix60 View Post
You're glad we won't be getting Parise because he's, in your opinion, too small? Have you lost your mind?
No. I'm glad we're not getting him because a quick fix at this stage makes no sense...

And he's small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix60 View Post
He'd be hands down the best forward to lace them up as a Habs in the last decade.
I'm not saying he's not talented. I agree he's a legit first line player. But no, I don't think he makes sense for us if we want to build towards a cup. He'd improve the team in the short term but his contract would be long and stupid and we're not at the stage right now where it makes sense to add a player like this. The fact that he's small isn't good either, but it's secondary.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 05:31 PM
  #129
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
so you think Stamkos is heavier than listed, and Parise is shorter than listed... pretty convenient.
There's reasoning for my beliefs though man. Smaller players are 'pumped up' on the height charts all the time. And Stamkos has been training like a freak. It's documented that he put on 20 extra pounds of muscle and recently was listed as one of the 25 fittest men in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
in any case, even if Stamkos is ~200pds, 2inches/5pds difference (assuming Parise is as listed), is still not a significant weight or size difference, and certainly not enough to consider one player "big enough" and the other "too small", at least not at a height/weight that keeps both around the league average.

I'm glad you have a crystal ball, care to let me know what the winning lottomax pick this weekend will be?
I'm just glad we're not adding him.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 09:25 PM
  #130
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,577
vCash: 500
well im glad the rangers didn't go and get gaborik, it could have helped turn them into a contender

MasterDecoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 09:30 PM
  #131
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
well im glad the rangers didn't go and get gaborik, it could have helped turn them into a contender
Good thing they got ripped off on the McD trade too. Lord knows we couldn't use that guy.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 09:39 PM
  #132
Ice Poutine
Photoshop Nut
 
Ice Poutine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ____
Country: Martinique
Posts: 11,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Good thing they got ripped off on the McD trade too. Lord knows we couldn't use that guy.
...and what a scorer we got in Gomez!!!

Ice Poutine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 09:48 PM
  #133
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Good thing they got ripped off on the McD trade too. Lord knows we couldn't use that guy.
yeah? and i guess montreal is immune to making good trades?

MasterDecoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 09:55 PM
  #134
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Poutine View Post
...and what a scorer we got in Gomez!!!
Nice avatar!

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 10:11 PM
  #135
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm pretty sure those numbers are out of whack. I read recently that Stamkos put on 20 pounds with Gary Roberts' group. There's no way he's not 200+ pounds. He's got to weigh more than 188. I also think that Parise is probably not 5'11.

Anyways... I'm glad we won't be getting him.
How about Patrick Kane? 5'11 and 188lbs, tell me the weight he started in the NHL at? Did it stop him from being a key contributer in winning a cup?

This "he's small" BS is about as intelligent as claiming we need a french GM. The team isn't 10 years away from contending for a cup, we have many solid pieces and with Parise we would have two excellent top lines. We have finished 1st in the conference with less than that and also gone to the semi-finals with less.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 10:15 PM
  #136
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
well im glad the rangers didn't go and get gaborik, it could have helped turn them into a contender
At 6"2 204, he's a giant, so obviously it was a good addition...

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 10:28 PM
  #137
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
How about Patrick Kane? 5'11 and 188lbs, tell me the weight he started in the NHL at? Did it stop him from being a key contributer in winning a cup?

This "he's small" BS is about as intelligent as claiming we need a french GM. The team isn't 10 years away from contending for a cup, we have many solid pieces and with Parise we would have two excellent top lines. We have finished 1st in the conference with less than that and also gone to the semi-finals with less.
Again, I'm not against small players. I just don't want a small team. Patrick Kane was not in the top six with two other midgets.

And my main problem with Parise is not his size, it's that he's a quick fix.

I don't think I can be any clearer than this. You coming out with silly strawman arguments like "Look at Patrick Kane" doesn't change anything here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
At 6"2 204, he's a giant, so obviously it was a good addition...
Subtracting Gomez was addition by subtraction.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 10:30 PM
  #138
Guilliam
Registered User
 
Guilliam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,986
vCash: 500
Back on the Pleks topic, I just read this in an article from MAG :

"ce -15 est entièrement l'oeuvre de buts de l'adversaire marqués dans un filet désert et de buts de l'adversaire en infériorité numérique."

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/hoc...8_section_POS1

it says that pleks' -15 is entirely the result of empty netters and PK goals against. I didn't do the math but it makes sense and it tells us, combined with his 52 points that he actually had an ok season after all.

Guilliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 10:33 PM
  #139
Roke
Registered User
 
Roke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guilliam View Post
Back on the Pleks topic, I just read this in an article from MAG :

"ce -15 est entièrement l'oeuvre de buts de l'adversaire marqués dans un filet désert et de buts de l'adversaire en infériorité numérique."

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/hoc...8_section_POS1

it says that pleks' -15 is entirely the result of empty netters and PK goals against. I didn't do the math but it makes sense and it tells us, combined with his 52 points that he actually had an ok season after all.
Sometime in March Plekanec had been on for 16 of the 18 Habs shorthanded and empty-net goals against. He was on for few short-handed goals for and empty-netters for but it didn't come close to off-setting that part of the +/-.

That's the big problem with +/-, it isn't only even-strength play (with goaltenders in) which leaves it open to be distorted to the detriment of a team's best players if things don't go right for one season. You also have goaltending effects playing a huge role, which is pretty much outside the player's control as well. Easily the worst widely-used stat in hockey.

Roke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 10:50 PM
  #140
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guilliam View Post
Back on the Pleks topic, I just read this in an article from MAG :

"ce -15 est entièrement l'oeuvre de buts de l'adversaire marqués dans un filet désert et de buts de l'adversaire en infériorité numérique."

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/hoc...8_section_POS1

it says that pleks' -15 is entirely the result of empty netters and PK goals against. I didn't do the math but it makes sense and it tells us, combined with his 52 points that he actually had an ok season after all.
Goals scored while in PK don't count in the +/-, nor PP goals. Note that SH goals (and being scored on a SH goals) DO count, but those are rare.

Plekanec -15 is due to playing tough 5vs5 minutes while not having a great year nor great linemates.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:06 PM
  #141
Stradale
Registered User
 
Stradale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
Goals scored while in PK don't count in the +/-, nor PP goals. Note that SH goals (and being scored on a SH goals) DO count, but those are rare.

Plekanec -15 is due to playing tough 5vs5 minutes while not having a great year nor great linemates.
Pretty sure goals scored shorthanded does count in +/-.

Stradale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:27 PM
  #142
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
Goals scored while in PK don't count in the +/-, nor PP goals. Note that SH goals (and being scored on a SH goals) DO count, but those are rare.

Plekanec -15 is due to playing tough 5vs5 minutes while not having a great year nor great linemates.
We allowed 8 shorthanded goals, and 10 empty net. So, as rare as it is, it could very well happen that that's the main reason for his +/-.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:28 PM
  #143
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And my main problem with Parise is not his size, it's that he's a quick fix.

I don't think I can be any clearer than this.
I think you could. I mean, adding the captain of one of the best defensive clubs in the league - who is probably right in the middle of his "prime" and scoring 30+ goals/year, mind you - could hardly be labeled as a "quick fix". He would be an important building block on any team, including ours, and the only "quick" part about it is that it wouldn't necessarily involve creating an acceptable package to go the other way, since we'd be talking FA here. There are holes in the top 6, no one internally is ready/able (imo) to take on the responsibility, so what else are you supposed to do?

I'm not pushing for Parise as some kind of "#1 FA target", but that's just because I don't see us realistically competing with more attractive destinations. If we're going to simply discuss his suitability as a possible addition, though, I'm of the opinion that he'd be one of the best players we could hope to land through free agency.

The only potential unfortunate part is that I could see someone trying to force Gionta onto that line instead (the Devils '08/09 connection), and I just don't think Gionta is a worthy top 6 player anymore. Not really looking forward to 8.3 million of Bourque and Gionta on the 3rd line next year, but neither guy can be in our top 6 if we're going to be a "good" team, imo.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:34 PM
  #144
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Again, I'm not against small players. I just don't want a small team. Patrick Kane was not in the top six with two other midgets.

And my main problem with Parise is not his size, it's that he's a quick fix.

I don't think I can be any clearer than this. You coming out with silly strawman arguments like "Look at Patrick Kane" doesn't change anything here.

Subtracting Gomez was addition by subtraction.
A "quick fix" is someone you grab with a year left on his contract it is not a UFA you sign for 5 years. You post this nonsense like "oh he is a quick fix" and then you try and justify it with "he is also small". I guess Suter would be a "quick fix" too.

It is just ridiculous and you would be laughed out of any hockey discussion for it.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:38 PM
  #145
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
A "quick fix" is someone you grab with a year left on his contract it is not a UFA you sign for 5 years. You post this nonsense like "oh he is a quick fix" and then you try and justify it with "he is also small". I guess Suter would be a "quick fix" too.

It is just ridiculous and you would be laughed out of any hockey discussion for it.
A quick fix is when you aren't contenders but go out and try to build a core with UFAs. That's what we have done forever. It's what the Leafs have done forever... it hasn't worked. And if we add Parise, it probably won't work either.

Every year it's the same thing on these boards... go get Briere, go get Lecavalier... It's spinning our wheels man. Why have you not learned this yet?

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:42 PM
  #146
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I think you could. I mean, adding the captain of one of the best defensive clubs in the league - who is probably right in the middle of his "prime" and scoring 30+ goals/year, mind you - could hardly be labeled as a "quick fix". He would be an important building block on any team, including ours, and the only "quick" part about it is that it wouldn't necessarily involve creating an acceptable package to go the other way, since we'd be talking FA here. There are holes in the top 6, no one internally is ready/able (imo) to take on the responsibility, so what else are you supposed to do?

I'm not pushing for Parise as some kind of "#1 FA target", but that's just because I don't see us realistically competing with more attractive destinations. If we're going to simply discuss his suitability as a possible addition, though, I'm of the opinion that he'd be one of the best players we could hope to land through free agency.

The only potential unfortunate part is that I could see someone trying to force Gionta onto that line instead (the Devils '08/09 connection), and I just don't think Gionta is a worthy top 6 player anymore. Not really looking forward to 8.3 million of Bourque and Gionta on the 3rd line next year, but neither guy can be in our top 6 if we're going to be a "good" team, imo.
I don't see him as a building block. I see a guy who's under 23 and has upside as a building block.

Parise is 28 and the kind of guy that you add to 'win it now.' We're not at that stage right now. Way too many holes in our lineup. For once I'd rather see us focus on an actual rebuild.

As for your point about Gionta... I'm not sure who else we really could put there. It would be:

Max DD Cole
Parise Pleks Gionta

I'm sorry but I don't see that as a great top 6. Putting Bourque (who has size but hasn't demonstrated much skill) is no better. Factor in our D as being at best questionable and I think we'd be adding Parise and wasting him.

I'm not opposed to adding FAs. But the timing has to be right. And I don't think the time to do this is now.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:44 PM
  #147
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
A quick fix is when you aren't contenders but go out and try to build a core with UFAs. That's what we have done forever. It's what the Leafs have done forever... it hasn't worked. And if we add Parise, it probably won't work either.
When you say "contender" do you mean stanley cup contender or playoff contender?

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:48 PM
  #148
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't see him as a building block. I see a guy who's under 23 and has upside as a building block.

Parise is 28 and the kind of guy that you add to 'win it now.' We're not at that stage right now. Way too many holes in our lineup. For once I'd rather see us focus on an actual rebuild.

As for your point about Gionta... I'm not sure who else we really could put there. It would be:

Max DD Cole
Parise Pleks Gionta

I'm sorry but I don't see that as a great top 6. Putting Bourque (who has size but hasn't demonstrated much skill) is no better. Factor in our D as being at best questionable and I think we'd be adding Parise and wasting him.

I'm not opposed to adding FAs. But the timing has to be right. And I don't think the time to do this is now.
If you have a team of 22 year olds you don't have to worry about winning it now or later, because that's one of the easiest way of developing a losing mentality. Parise isn't even 28 yet, to dismiss him for being old makes zero sense even if you don't think this team is a contender in the next 3 years. You can't accurately plan for making a good team in 10 years and ignore the present.

There's nothing "quick fix" about a 28 year old top line winger.

Et le But is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:50 PM
  #149
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
When you say "contender" do you mean stanley cup contender or playoff contender?
The only thing I think we should care about is building towards the cup. As I said in my post to Ohashi, I think if we added Parise we'd be wasting him. We're better off rebuilding and THEN looking to do a move like this.

As it stands we're barely a playoff team, it doesn't make sense to make this kind of move right now. Give it a year, let the team show what it can do. Then evaluate... we don't need to go locking ourselves into a big contract like this right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
If you have a team of 22 year olds you don't have to worry about winning it now or later, because that's one of the easiest way of developing a losing mentality. Parise isn't even 28 yet, to dismiss him for being old makes zero sense even if you don't think this team is a contender in the next 3 years. You can't accurately plan for making a good team in 10 years and ignore the present.

There's nothing "quick fix" about a 28 year old top line winger.
Tons of the greatest players of all-time developed on losing teams. Yzerman, Sakic, Crosby, Lemieux... all played for horrible teams. This "losing mentality" is crap. Get better players and the team will win.

And I didn't dismiss Parise for being old. I said that he doesn't make sense for us right now. He's in his prime and we're barely a playoff team. Throwing him a big contract now doesn't make a whole lot of sense when we're not going to win anything anytime soon. Parise makes sense for a team that's a player away from a cup. We're not there. It IS a quick fix to go get him.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 04-09-2012 at 11:57 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 12:10 AM
  #150
ChoseLa
Registered User
 
ChoseLa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Martinique
Posts: 4,455
vCash: 500
No team has ever regreted to sign guys in the mould Parise, every team in the league should try to sign this player. Not doing so because it would be considered a quick fix (Much like Brière in Phily or Richards in New-York, both teams weren't contenders) would be madness.

ChoseLa 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 10:32 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.