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

Frig it, Johnson gets another thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-14-2007, 11:12 AM
  #26
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,824
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABS456 View Post
Like who ?
Ughh I'm too lazy to go hopping around TSN.ca looking at average salaries of defensive-minded third line centers but I have to think they're out there. Heck what about Lapierre? I don't think he's miles away from Bonk's level, Bonk's probably a better face-off man though. I wouldn't be shattered if we went with Begin and Lapierre as our bottom two centers next year.

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 11:19 AM
  #27
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs10Habs View Post
I would definitely keep Johnson, he's the type of player that is not going to do anything fancy. He's also very responsible at both ends of the ice, and doesn't usually get caught out of position.

I also like Bonk, but I wouldn't be devastated if he left. If he doesn't resign with us, I could see Laps stepping into his slot on the 3rd line.
Laps would need to spend the entire offseason with Carbo and Jarvis to really learn what it takes to be the shutdown guy we need up the middle. You need your checking centre to have the size and reach to handle Sundin, Lecavalier which Bonk has. What Radek lacks is the footspeed to keep up with Briere, Gomez, Spezza or Crosby.

If Bonk does come back it has to be at a reduced salary. If he did it just gives Laps a little more time to learn the role.

As for Johnson, I say keep him. You need glue guys like him on a team. This is real hockey; not fantasy hockey. Johnson has had a LOT of injury issues in his career and the longer he stays healthy the more he'll learn to trust his body again. We haven't had a glue guy like him since Keane left. He's the team conscience. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the guy 2.5 even. Has a chance to be comparable to Ethan Moreau IMO.

Malefic74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 11:46 AM
  #28
pepperMonkey
Registered User
 
pepperMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Basically, what I look for in a player in Johnson's role, or potential range of roles, is as follows:

- produces offense (to the tune of 18-22 goals, 50 points a year) while providing decent defense; essentially his role right now, plus the offense. If you think that's out of whack in expectations, look no further than Schaefer, Hecht, etc.

or

- if 30-35 points is the point-range we expect, then a whole lot more grit and expectations of clutch offense, high energy, and more defensive capabilities, a la Peca, Draper types who earn in the same salary range.
err...but a 50pt player...on the third line? We barely have a 50 pt player on the team let alone one on the third line making half the salary of our top guys. Besides, Schaefer plays on a power racked team which I would think is the only reason why he sometimes plays on the 3rd line if not the 2nd. As for Hecht...err...doesn't he play on the first line? Beside Briere? I would think if Johnson played on the first line all the time his point production will increase by a fair margin also...
As for Peca and Draper...would love to have them on this team but how many Pecas and Drapers are out there?
Besides, although I would love to sign all players for ridiculously low prices, how many first liners (ala Hecht) who are "UFA's" get signed for peanuts in this league? It's one thing to bring up kids from the system and pay them peanuts but last I checked, signing UFA's isn't exactly a cheap thing.
We finally have a player who we generally all like and not cussing all the time, are we in such a hurry to get rid of him? Bottom line, imo, this team is better WITH Johnson than without.

[edit: as for Bonk, I didn't mind him this year and think he did well. I wouldn't mind him coming back but only at a reduced salary. Otherwise I think he's just too slow]

pepperMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 11:48 AM
  #29
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 20,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74 View Post
Laps would need to spend the entire offseason with Carbo and Jarvis to really learn what it takes to be the shutdown guy we need up the middle. You need your checking centre to have the size and reach to handle Sundin, Lecavalier which Bonk has. What Radek lacks is the footspeed to keep up with Briere, Gomez, Spezza or Crosby.

If Bonk does come back it has to be at a reduced salary. If he did it just gives Laps a little more time to learn the role.

As for Johnson, I say keep him. You need glue guys like him on a team. This is real hockey; not fantasy hockey. Johnson has had a LOT of injury issues in his career and the longer he stays healthy the more he'll learn to trust his body again. We haven't had a glue guy like him since Keane left. He's the team conscience. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the guy 2.5 even. Has a chance to be comparable to Ethan Moreau IMO.
Yeah...if he wasn't afraid of his own shadow maybe.

He's a good player, I just don't think he's got enough offensive talent left to play a scoring role and he isn't physical enough to play a shutdown, up and down, north south type of role you want from your 3rd line winger

417 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 02:23 PM
  #30
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepperMonkey View Post
err...but a 50pt player...on the third line? We barely have a 50 pt player on the team let alone one on the third line making half the salary of our top guys. Besides, Schaefer plays on a power racked team which I would think is the only reason why he sometimes plays on the 3rd line if not the 2nd. As for Hecht...err...doesn't he play on the first line? Beside Briere? I would think if Johnson played on the first line all the time his point production will increase by a fair margin also...
As for Peca and Draper...would love to have them on this team but how many Pecas and Drapers are out there?
Besides, although I would love to sign all players for ridiculously low prices, how many first liners (ala Hecht) who are "UFA's" get signed for peanuts in this league? It's one thing to bring up kids from the system and pay them peanuts but last I checked, signing UFA's isn't exactly a cheap thing.
We finally have a player who we generally all like and not cussing all the time, are we in such a hurry to get rid of him? Bottom line, imo, this team is better WITH Johnson than without.

[edit: as for Bonk, I didn't mind him this year and think he did well. I wouldn't mind him coming back but only at a reduced salary. Otherwise I think he's just too slow]
I suppose you're missing the point. Johnson earns in the Hecht/Schaefer salary bracket and isn't as good as them. And yeah, Hecht plays the top line in Buffalo, but he's also played the third line frequently and bounced all over the lineup. His stats remain virtually the same, unlike Johnson's. Same goes for Schaefer.

But the point is that these players (among many, many others) earn in the same salary bracket as Johnson yet outproduce him, and I'd also take Schaefer or Hecht's fundamentals over Johnson's.


Re: Peca and Draper. I suppose you're missing the point again. Just because there aren't many out there (which I don't necessarily agree with, but will save that dispute for another time) doesn't mean Montreal should overpay for players not as good as them, paying them in the same salary bracket.


I don't think the fact that Johnson's likeable and generally solid fundamentally should make him above reproach. Montreal needs to be fiscally responsible going forward, and I don't think spending much on the bottom-six is fiscally responsible--especially when said players aren't producing enough offense, and/or aren't producing enough intangibles.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 02:36 PM
  #31
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I suppose you're missing the point. Johnson earns in the Hecht/Schaefer salary bracket and isn't as good as them. And yeah, Hecht plays the top line in Buffalo, but he's also played the third line frequently and bounced all over the lineup. His stats remain virtually the same, unlike Johnson's. Same goes for Schaefer.

But the point is that these players (among many, many others) earn in the same salary bracket as Johnson yet outproduce him, and I'd also take Schaefer or Hecht's fundamentals over Johnson's.


Re: Peca and Draper. I suppose you're missing the point again. Just because there aren't many out there (which I don't necessarily agree with, but will save that dispute for another time) doesn't mean Montreal should overpay for players not as good as them, paying them in the same salary bracket.


I don't think the fact that Johnson's likeable and generally solid fundamentally should make him above reproach. Montreal needs to be fiscally responsible going forward, and I don't think spending much on the bottom-six is fiscally responsible--especially when said players aren't producing enough offense, and/or aren't producing enough intangibles.
Mtl's full of , yeah he's good but...., type players. It's the same trickle down effect that we've spoken of. If there was more grit on the 1st 2 lines, you wouldn't need any from Bonk/Johnson.

One question about Johnson though. Going into the year, it was going to be Bonk/Begin and whoever, and Johnson/Plekanec, and probaly Perezhogin. I wonder how the line's production would have differed ?

I like the competence of a Bonk or Johnson, but there are limitations. The team can't keep over paying support players.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 02:45 PM
  #32
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 20,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Mtl's full of , yeah he's good but...., type players. It's the same trickle down effect that we've spoken of. If there was more grit on the 1st 2 lines, you wouldn't need any from Bonk/Johnson.

One question about Johnson though. Going into the year, it was going to be Bonk/Begin and whoever, and Johnson/Plekanec, and probaly Perezhogin. I wonder how the line's production would have differed ?

I like the competence of a Bonk or Johnson, but there are limitations. The team can't keep over paying support players.
Exactly

417 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 03:06 PM
  #33
fufonzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,545
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to fufonzo Send a message via MSN to fufonzo
I think this is the first time I disagree with you mcphee.

I think Johnson is the ideal 3rd liner. He leads the team in ES points and is great defensively. He also seems to me like a good veteran guy to have on the team. Like it's been stated before, he would most likely have near 50 points had he gotten some PP time, as he normally did with Pheonix. At $2m I would love to have him back.

With Pleks as our 3rd line centre next year, I think Johnson could have an even better season.

And although I really like Bonk, I think it's time for him to go, especially if we re-sign Johnson.

As for Laps, I don't think he'd be good enough to be a 3rd liner. He's the ideal 4th liner with Bégin.

fufonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 05:13 PM
  #34
Statman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 61
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74 View Post
Laps would need to spend the entire offseason with Carbo and Jarvis to really learn what it takes to be the shutdown guy we need up the middle. You need your checking centre to have the size and reach to handle Sundin, Lecavalier which Bonk has. What Radek lacks is the footspeed to keep up with Briere, Gomez, Spezza or Crosby.

If Bonk does come back it has to be at a reduced salary. If he did it just gives Laps a little more time to learn the role.

As for Johnson, I say keep him. You need glue guys like him on a team. This is real hockey; not fantasy hockey. Johnson has had a LOT of injury issues in his career and the longer he stays healthy the more he'll learn to trust his body again. We haven't had a glue guy like him since Keane left. He's the team conscience. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the guy 2.5 even. Has a chance to be comparable to Ethan Moreau IMO.
response to Johnson having "alot of injury issues in his career".

WOW.

9 and a half years in the NHL. 630 games.
He's played 76+ games every year except in 01-02 when he missed 20 games with a knee strain/tear. and 70 games in 03-04 when he had shoulder surgery.
other than those 2 instances, he's been healthy.

he is not a band-aid type player (ala Forsberg).

Statman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 05:47 PM
  #35
Guillemin
Registered User
 
Guillemin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,110
vCash: 500
Say what you want. Mike Johnson is a superhero. Lots of stupid avatars around here with Habs faces on superhero bodies. All those faces should be MJ.

Once, after a spurt in the offensive zone, he went all the way back and backchecked the puck away, and on the way back to the bench, he saved a baby in the crowd.

True story. Happened to a friend of a friend of mine.

Guillemin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 07:09 PM
  #36
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fufonzo View Post
I think this is the first time I disagree with you mcphee.

I think Johnson is the ideal 3rd liner. He leads the team in ES points and is great defensively. He also seems to me like a good veteran guy to have on the team. Like it's been stated before, he would most likely have near 50 points had he gotten some PP time, as he normally did with Pheonix. At $2m I would love to have him back.

With Pleks as our 3rd line centre next year, I think Johnson could have an even better season.

And although I really like Bonk, I think it's time for him to go, especially if we re-sign Johnson.

As for Laps, I don't think he'd be good enough to be a 3rd liner. He's the ideal 4th liner with Bégin.
I like Johnson, more than I thought I would. It's not his fault in any way, but the team may need the $ for other issues, whether it's shoring up the D or competing for an elite offensive player. I'd like to see him on the team, I'm just not sure if it'll work. You may have a point about his numbers. If Johnson has 50 points, it means you have a lousy team and he's getting pp minutes because there are no better option. Still, I'd hate to not get a #1 or 2 d man or a top 25 scorer because you have too much $ tied up on the checking line.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 11:36 PM
  #37
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,489
vCash: 500
Johnson is the only UFA vet we should re-sign. I like Bonk but I realised that he's too slow. And Johnson could take his place as third line center.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 11:40 PM
  #38
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Johnson is the only UFA vet we should re-sign. I like Bonk but I realised that he's too slow. And Johnson could take his place as third line center.
Johnson is not a C. It would be nice if we could dispell this belief once and for all.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2007, 11:48 PM
  #39
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Johnson is not a C. It would be nice if we could dispell this belief once and for all.
He has played C more than a few times during his career. The first one that said it in fact was Gainey.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:54 AM
  #40
Mathieu Lavergne
AKA Saku K.
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 3-Rivières, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mathieu Lavergne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
He has played C more than a few times during his career. The first one that said it in fact was Gainey.
The only time Johnson played center in his career was last year in Phoenix where he played about 20-30 games at center since the team's centers were plagued by injuries. Heck, he did not play any significant time at center in his first three seasons in Phoenix and correct me if I'm wrong but he did not play a single game this season as a center.

He was pretty bad in the faceoff circle in his short stint in Phoenix and lacks experience at the position. When Gainey stated he could play center, that means he played last year as a center and if a catastrophe appears to strike, he could temporarily play at center. Hell, when Bonk was injured he did not play center. When the habs were desperately searching to generate offense on the second line and were starving for a productive center, they even tried Kovalev and Lapierre for a few games and Johnson did not get a single shot at playing C. One could argue it was because the third line was solid early in the season and Carbo didn't want to break it up.

The fact is, Johnson has limited experience at center, only played a handful of games at the position and has made his career playing on the wing. There is absolutely no reason to think he should be converted at this stage of his career and has no proven record as being an effective center whatsoever.

Mike Johnson is a drafted and has been developed as a right winger, he's no center IMO.


Last edited by Mathieu Lavergne: 03-15-2007 at 01:00 AM.
Mathieu Lavergne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 09:44 AM
  #41
Habitants
Registered User
 
Habitants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,181
vCash: 500
i like johnson, and i think he should be kept. sign him at 1.9 for 2-3years.

good speed, good size good effort good defense, he pretty well rounded and plays whereever you need him.at 1.9 he is a pretty good deal compared to some other salaries in the league.

as for bonk, well i would just as well let him walk. he has improved significantly this season, but was pretty dreadfull before this season. i know he has good size and experience and can help shut down the opposing big centers, but i would rather have pleks on the 3rd line and then koivu on the second and a new #1 center. or put grabo on the second.

lets face it the team is building, and they need to make way for the youth movement. i also would not mind seeing Chipchura on the 3rd line, i think that he could do bonks job at less than half the cost.

but johnson yes i like him, he has good character, and he come to play he can help to develop our younger guys

Habitants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 12:20 PM
  #42
Maxpac
Registered User
 
Maxpac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hockey city
Posts: 14,835
vCash: 500
With the way Chipchura is playing right now in hamilton i don't think signing Johnson will be necessary. I would expect 10-12 goals, 20-25 points for chips witch is less then Johnson but atleast we save another mil+ Chipchura is 12 years younger and still has alot of areas to be better at

Maxpac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 01:26 PM
  #43
Jaydawg
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saku K. View Post
The only time Johnson played center in his career was last year in Phoenix where he played about 20-30 games at center since the team's centers were plagued by injuries. Heck, he did not play any significant time at center in his first three seasons in Phoenix and correct me if I'm wrong but he did not play a single game this season as a center.

He was pretty bad in the faceoff circle in his short stint in Phoenix and lacks experience at the position. When Gainey stated he could play center, that means he played last year as a center and if a catastrophe appears to strike, he could temporarily play at center. Hell, when Bonk was injured he did not play center. When the habs were desperately searching to generate offense on the second line and were starving for a productive center, they even tried Kovalev and Lapierre for a few games and Johnson did not get a single shot at playing C. One could argue it was because the third line was solid early in the season and Carbo didn't want to break it up.

The fact is, Johnson has limited experience at center, only played a handful of games at the position and has made his career playing on the wing. There is absolutely no reason to think he should be converted at this stage of his career and has no proven record as being an effective center whatsoever.

Mike Johnson is a drafted and has been developed as a right winger, he's no center IMO.
he was never drafted...FYI.

Jaydawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2007, 04:16 PM
  #44
Mathieu Lavergne
AKA Saku K.
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 3-Rivières, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mathieu Lavergne
You are right, my mistake.

Mathieu Lavergne 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 10:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.