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

Bob Gainey's drastic purge.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-02-2006, 09:35 PM
  #76
CaptCrunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 787
vCash: 500
The trade that brought Zednik and Bulis was a great trade.

Zednik was not the same player before his "contact" than after but he was still considered as a clutch player up to the middle of the 2005-2006 season.

The only problem (if you choose to call that a problem) is that we chose to wait untill we were absolutely, totally convinced that he had no more value to the team before trading him.

Of course, by that time, everybody in the league and their mother knew it too.

Same thing with Bulis, to a lesser degree. I remember reading about his great play in 2004-2005's off season and wishing that he developped that "edge" that would bridge the gap between a decent third liner and a potential 1st-2nd trio winger (lets not deceive ourselves, the potential was always there... it just didn't come together...).

I would compare that to Ryder this off season.

Any proposal for a trade will be met with staunch resistance by fan who consider him an important part of the team (they may well be right).

Other fans would look at his market value (which should be really high) and decide we should take our chances at moving him and get another solid guy in return, with the rationale that most half-assed plays will be hidded by his 30 goals.

Lets say that, by the end of 2006-2007's season, things blow up in the face of good old mikey and that he loses his "scoring touch" (worse things have happened).

Lets further say that he is traded for a 3rd pick (taking into account that Mikey's problems are perceived by everyone else in the NHL as a permanent condition...)

It doesn't change the fact that, for a while, Ryder would have been a great draft pick, a great pickup and an important part of our team!

Successive actions doesn't change past realities. Only our perception of them.

CaptCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2006, 10:31 PM
  #77
Markov79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canuckastan
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,390
vCash: 500
I was a big fan of Zed and Bulis. But this isn't the Canadiens of 5-8 years ago when we were hurting for guys who could play in this league (craig darby as a second line centre...dear lord we sucked!). Guys like Perez, AK, Plekanec, Higgins, etc have learned everything they can in the AHL and it would be a waste having them play five minutes a game up here. We needed to make room. Zed and Bulis have done very well for us and are not busts but the time came for them to go. Just because players are eventually let go for next to nothing doesn't mean the trade that brought them here wasn't great.

Markov79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2006, 11:11 PM
  #78
Le Tricolore
Boo! Booooo!
 
Le Tricolore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 27,604
vCash: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Yes, for a couple of years during which everybody knew that we were in a transition period and that we were not competing seriously. He was no longer much of a core player. Evidence: Gainey traded him for a 3rd round draft pick.
yeah, but you said they were busts in the sense that they were never core players on the team.

Le Tricolore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2006, 11:35 PM
  #79
TheHoser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: English Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCrunch View Post
He was supposed to be more than Juneau.

At the very least, he was supposed to do Plekanec's job.

Most level minded people saw nothing more than a shutdown center in the 3rd line, true.

Last time I looked, Plekanec was the one on the 3rd.

In some people's wildest dreams he had a shot at replacing Ribeiro.

Stats tell a bit more than body mesurements, and that's what influenced a lot of people... this big 6'3'' "presence".

How He makes this presence felt last season I never knew. You remember any of his bodychecks?

Some people were talking of bonk as being in the same mold of primeau, brindamour and arnott.

Don't believe me?

Here's a post from the original "bonk is too good to be a third line center" thread, dated 07-12-2004:



Anyways, to me, Bonk is much described as a bust than anything else.

Who knows, maybe we have a Wayne Primeau in the works and I'm not aware?

Maybe next season will proove me wrong.

with a touch of
The 4th line in Montreal evolved into the checking line. The 3rd line was more geared towards offense, whereas the 4th was all shut down. He was doing his job as a checking shut-down center, and doing it well after he recovered from his serious groin injury.

And you don't have to have 200 hits a year to make your presence known. Ever see somebody outmuscle Bonk along the boards? Ever see someone push Bonk off the puck? Rarley. And he was an indomitable force when he decided to shadow somebody, it didn't matter how big the guy was Bonk could keep him in check.

Bonk wasn't a bust, and he never got a shot on the top two lines when he was healthy anyways.

TheHoser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2006, 11:55 PM
  #80
CaptCrunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHoser View Post

And you don't have to have 200 hits a year to make your presence known. Ever see somebody outmuscle Bonk along the boards? Ever see someone push Bonk off the puck? Rarley. And he was an indomitable force when he decided to shadow somebody, it didn't matter how big the guy was Bonk could keep him in check.
I'm sorry, I didn't get that from Bonk's last season's play. The only thing I got is a guy that was put on "sparky" Begin's line (the proud 4th) for an inspirational special treatement.

And it seemed to have worked... a bit.

I mean, everyone with low batteries seems to have had Begin as a linemate.

I sometime feel like I am in a bizarro universe when I see these descriptions.

However, I understand that you have your own perception of the guy and that you must see things that I don't.

Lets agree to disagree.

Because if there is one thing that is tough to judge is the effectiveness of these so-called "defensive specialists" where you don't have to score, be physical or stand out in any way and where the season stats can be dismissed as being " not the whole portrait"...

Where do you draw the line?

The only thing I know is that I've had enough of sundstrom-type players. They make me physically sick.

But that's just me...

CaptCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 12:39 AM
  #81
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Tricolore View Post
yeah, but you said they were busts in the sense that they were never core players on the team.
They were not core players beyond the band-aid years, that's what I meant.

Kirk Muller* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 12:49 AM
  #82
Habs13
Registered User
 
Habs13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: England
Posts: 5,237
vCash: 500
Gainey brought in Begin... and Downey too.

Habs13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 06:45 AM
  #83
StanleyCH25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
They were not core players beyond the band-aid years, that's what I meant.
I still don't get how that makes them busts. They highly contributed to the team during the years they were here. They were considered key pieces of the team during this time. They are now traded or let go to obtain new pieces that fill the team's direction better and that now makes them busts (or the trade a bust)? It just doesn't make sense to me. The way I look at it is that anytime you can use key pieces of your team and turn them into an even better player, that is a good deal. So, if you're telling me that turning Zednik and Bulis into Samsonov and Johnson is not an improvement, then I suppose I can agree with your reasoning that they are a bust. If, on the other hand, you agree with me that Samsonov and Johnson are an upgrade over those two, then I have no idea how you can label the players or initial trade a bust. Otherwise, it would be like saying that we should hold onto players who are meeting the team's needs even when better offers are on the table just to make sure the trade / players aren't considered busts. I don't see the logic in that.

StanleyCH25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 08:58 AM
  #84
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,422
vCash: 500
1. Turnover like this is common place in the new NHL. I wouldn't be surprised that in another two years we look back to today, and the percentage gone is exactly the same. Two years in a long time in the NHL. The day of NHL rosters looking close to the same year in and year out are gone.

2. For those ripping what we got in return for our departed players, take into consideration what we gave up to get those players. We didn't give up alot to acquire Langdon (nothing), Perreault (nothing), Dwyer (nothing), Dagenais (nothing), Dackell (8th rounder), Dowd (5th rounder), Quintal (4th rounder), Juneau (nothing), Sundstrom (now retired Hackett..plus we got a draft pick), Kilger (Zholtok R.I.P.), Dykhuis (nothing...I believe money), so what were you expecting to get for that group of players?????? Crosby and Ovechkin???????

__________________
Hey look, it's Duffman; the guy in a costume that creates awareness of Duff!
Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 12:32 PM
  #85
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
1. Turnover like this is common place in the new NHL. I wouldn't be surprised that in another two years we look back to today, and the percentage gone is exactly the same. Two years in a long time in the NHL. The day of NHL rosters looking close to the same year in and year out are gone.

2. For those ripping what we got in return for our departed players, take into consideration what we gave up to get those players. We didn't give up alot to acquire Langdon (nothing), Perreault (nothing), Dwyer (nothing), Dagenais (nothing), Dackell (8th rounder), Dowd (5th rounder), Quintal (4th rounder), Juneau (nothing), Sundstrom (now retired Hackett..plus we got a draft pick), Kilger (Zholtok R.I.P.), Dykhuis (nothing...I believe money), so what were you expecting to get for that group of players?????? Crosby and Ovechkin???????
I think most of the turnover came about the first Gainey year which was the old NHL(I will verify that later). Though I have to agree with you that turnover may increase in the new NHL. (though we have been fairly stable this year)... how ironic.

As for the return, I agree with you. Also people should take into account, that trades are not like they used to be. The cap dictates many trades, and players are often almost let go for hardly anything.

I think the Zednik deal is an example. He was let go for a 3rd pick... meanwhile we got Johnson for a 4th round pick. It's not a very high price for established players.

Obviously Zednik was dealt (among others), knowing we could get Johnson for a 4th. Also both are UFA to be.

On a side note, I want to point out that we are most likely getting a top 3rd round pick (this year washington's 3rd pick turned out to be pick #64), whereas our 4th round pick would have stand at #109... we were in the middle of the pack.

I think Washington will end up improving a little bit, but so will we...

Pere Noel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 08:08 PM
  #86
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patp77 View Post
I still don't get how that makes them busts. They highly contributed to the team during the years they were here. They were considered key pieces of the team during this time. They are now traded or let go to obtain new pieces that fill the team's direction better and that now makes them busts (or the trade a bust)? It just doesn't make sense to me. The way I look at it is that anytime you can use key pieces of your team and turn them into an even better player, that is a good deal. So, if you're telling me that turning Zednik and Bulis into Samsonov and Johnson is not an improvement, then I suppose I can agree with your reasoning that they are a bust. If, on the other hand, you agree with me that Samsonov and Johnson are an upgrade over those two, then I have no idea how you can label the players or initial trade a bust. Otherwise, it would be like saying that we should hold onto players who are meeting the team's needs even when better offers are on the table just to make sure the trade / players aren't considered busts. I don't see the logic in that.
Zednik and Bulis did not turn into Samsonov and Johnson. They turned into a 3rd round draft pick.

The reason I say they were busts for the organization is because they were expected to be a big part of the team's future. It didn't turn out that way. Gainey thought they were dispensible, so he traded them.

Kirk Muller* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 08:47 PM
  #87
J-D
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: the dizzle!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,030
vCash: 500
Then you are using the term bust in a manner too loose for my tastes.

Every damn NHL player of the 80s, 90s and 00s are and were busts except Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman, Niklas Lidstrom and Mario Lemieux?

Okay I am going too far; let's not kid ourselves - not every player is traded because they don't fulfill expectations. Monetary situation (Gretzky) or other problems (Heatley for Hossa, Roy out of Montreal are example) are causes of trades.

However, just because a player doesn't fit into a team's plans and gets traded (or isn't resigned) means he is a bust.

Jan Bulis is a perfect example: we all saw him as a third liner and BG could (and maybe would) have kept him as such, but the player himself decided not to play here anymore.

Let's not kid ourselves: did anyone here thought one second that Jan Bulis would become a premier forward in the NHL and "be a big part of the future"? Except for Stefan_Latulippe, nodding favorably, I hear crickets chirping.

Richard Zednik, on the other hand, wooed the fans from the beginning with his strength and his one-handed stick moves. He got injured, and he went way below his par performance last season. Therefore, the label bust is not out of place concerning his tenure as a Hab. But, as said before, Kirk, you are using the term in a too loose manner if you say that, or you maybe you are Andre Savardm and you are disappointed but have great humility to accept your errors.

J-D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 10:25 PM
  #88
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Zednik and Bulis did not turn into Samsonov and Johnson. They turned into a 3rd round draft pick.
This is technically true. But contextually wrong.

This is the new NHL with a cap. Players are let go for peanuts to allow UFA signings or simply meet the cap requirements.

The truth...

Zednik was let go in return fo an early 3rd round pick, so that we can get Johnson against a mid 4th round pick. Great deal !

Bulis was let go for nothing, so that we can sign Samsonov without giving anything away. Great deal again !

Pere Noel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2006, 10:27 PM
  #89
Kirk Muller*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Yes, I am very loose.

Kirk Muller* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2006, 03:23 PM
  #90
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Yes, I am very loose.
Ok

Pere Noel 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 08:12 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.