HFBoards

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

Offseason moves!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-12-2006, 05:54 PM
  #1
habs4eva
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
Offseason moves!!

I think the Gainey should sign Arnott, he is much better than Lang, as some rumors suggest (zednik for Lang) and he may cost the same (3.8M$) or somewhere near that, wouldnt he be a better choice than Lang ?

And what abt Aebischer for Modin ? would that be possible? TB needs goaltending badly and Aebischer is an upgrade from Grahame, no doubt abt that. TB wouldnt be able to afford Giguere, due to this contract unless they give up some like St.Louis and its unlikely that Burke would want him. And there arent many ufa goalies out there either.

Please get rid of Bonk and Zednik !! Although Bonk has played well lately but for 2.4M$ he is an expensive 4th line center !!

Higgins - Koivu - Modin
Kovalev - Arnott - ?? (Latendresse)
Perezgohin - Plekanec - Ryder
Begin - Ribeiro - Murray

habs4eva is offline  
Old
05-12-2006, 05:58 PM
  #2
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs4eva
I think the Gainey should sign Arnott, he is much better than Lang, as some rumors suggest (zednik for Lang) and he may cost the same (3.8M$) or somewhere near that, wouldnt he be a better choice than Lang ?

And what abt Aebischer for Modin ? would that be possible? TB needs goaltending badly and Aebischer is an upgrade from Grahame, no doubt abt that. TB wouldnt be able to afford Giguere, due to this contract unless they give up some like St.Louis and its unlikely that Burke would want him. And there arent many ufa goalies out there either.

Please get rid of Bonk and Zednik !! Although Bonk has played well lately but for 2.4M$ he is an expensive 4th line center !!

Higgins - Koivu - Modin
Kovalev - Arnott - ?? (Latendresse)
Perezgohin - Plekanec - Ryder
Begin - Ribeiro - Murray
The rumor reported on this site mentioned a trade of Zednik for Lang. That would 1) grant one of your wishes and 2) reduce the cost burden because Zednik's salary would be gone, whereas signing Arnott would mean adding Arnott's salary to Zednik's.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
05-12-2006, 06:08 PM
  #3
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,787
vCash: 500
I'll chime in for Teufelsdreck and say that if Montreal is going to pursue a center for the second line, that means Ribeiro is gone. He is not a fourth line player and would be detrimental on that fourth line.

Mike8 is offline  
Old
05-12-2006, 06:23 PM
  #4
Dan K
HFBoards Partner
 
Dan K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,176
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dan K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
I'll chime in for Teufelsdreck and say that if Montreal is going to pursue a center for the second line, that means Ribeiro is gone. He is not a fourth line player and would be detrimental on that fourth line.
Absolutely, right on.

Even though there are a dozen or so recent threads on this subject active right now, here it goes.

1) Lang or Arnott is not a choice. It's not like they're both UFAs. Arnott is a UFA and we would have to convince him that Montreal is the right fit for him, and also give him a good enough offer. Lang is under contract for another year, and acquiring him involves working out a deal with Detroit's GM. So it's not really a case of picking one or the other, but rather seeing which - if either - deal makes more sense for us.

2) Bonk would almost 100% clear waivers right now. There is no sense dealing him if he'd have basically negative value. Yes, he makes too much money, but it's the last year on his contract next year and he's a good 4th line guy and penalty killer.

3) Getting rid of Zednik is not an urgent thing. He's a quality goal scorer who had a rough regular season in 05-06. Now he may ask for a trade, as he has said he is not happy playing on the third line, and he could be a half-decent trade chip, but he isn't a guy we should just "get rid of."

4) If Tampa can't lure a UFA goalie (for some reason I have an odd feeling they end up signing Belfour), an Aebischer for Modin deal might work. We might have to toss something in though. Don't forget that any trade involving Aebischer depends on us being able to re-sign Huet first.

5) I'm pretty sure we need to make room for Kostitsyn in the roster next year. This, to me, is an incentive for trading Zednik, assuming some value can be gotten in return.

So, let's say we sign Arnott. That gives us something like:

Higgins - Koivu - Ryder
Kostitsyn - Arnott - Kovalev
Zednik - Plekanec - Perezhogin
Murray - Bonk - Begin

I'm not a fan of Ryder on the first line, and I would much rather see him on the third, but that would require the dealing of some asset(s) (Ribeiro ++++) for a top line winger (or dipping into the free agent pool for a second player).

Dan K is offline  
Old
05-13-2006, 10:05 PM
  #5
digitalmonkey*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 951
vCash: 500
Stay away from Arnott. The guy is a bum and only put forth an effort this season in hopes to milk some unsuspecting team out of millions.

digitalmonkey* is offline  
Old
05-13-2006, 10:59 PM
  #6
Habruti!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gatineau
Posts: 1,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakuuuuu
Absolutely, right on.

Even though there are a dozen or so recent threads on this subject active right now, here it goes.

1) Lang or Arnott is not a choice. It's not like they're both UFAs. Arnott is a UFA and we would have to convince him that Montreal is the right fit for him, and also give him a good enough offer. Lang is under contract for another year, and acquiring him involves working out a deal with Detroit's GM. So it's not really a case of picking one or the other, but rather seeing which - if either - deal makes more sense for us.

2) Bonk would almost 100% clear waivers right now. There is no sense dealing him if he'd have basically negative value. Yes, he makes too much money, but it's the last year on his contract next year and he's a good 4th line guy and penalty killer.

3) Getting rid of Zednik is not an urgent thing. He's a quality goal scorer who had a rough regular season in 05-06. Now he may ask for a trade, as he has said he is not happy playing on the third line, and he could be a half-decent trade chip, but he isn't a guy we should just "get rid of."

4) If Tampa can't lure a UFA goalie (for some reason I have an odd feeling they end up signing Belfour), an Aebischer for Modin deal might work. We might have to toss something in though. Don't forget that any trade involving Aebischer depends on us being able to re-sign Huet first.

5) I'm pretty sure we need to make room for Kostitsyn in the roster next year. This, to me, is an incentive for trading Zednik, assuming some value can be gotten in return.

So, let's say we sign Arnott. That gives us something like:

Higgins - Koivu - Ryder
Kostitsyn - Arnott - Kovalev
Zednik - Plekanec - Perezhogin
Murray - Bonk - Begin

I'm not a fan of Ryder on the first line, and I would much rather see him on the third, but that would require the dealing of some asset(s) (Ribeiro ++++) for a top line winger (or dipping into the free agent pool for a second player).
I think we will see Lapierre with the team next year and I am not too sure how we can make room for him. Comments from Zednik that if he plays on a third line means he has no business on this team leads me to think that he is not a team player and this is something that will not be tolerated by both Carbo and Gainey. I really do not see him with us next year.

With no trade, no signing we would get...
Higgins, Koivu, Ryder
Kostsitsyn. Ribs, Kovalev
Begin, Plekanek, Perezhogin
Murray, Bonk, Lapierre

is the likely lineup we will see but I would be hoping for something along these lines:
Higgins, Koivu, Perezhogin
Kostisyn, Plekanek, Kovalev
Begin, Lapierre, Ryder
Murray, Bonk, Mayers (perhaps we could sign him as a UFA) This would allow us to ease in Chipchura to replace Bonk the following year.

Habruti! is offline  
Old
05-13-2006, 11:18 PM
  #7
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habs4eva
I think the Gainey should sign Arnott, he is much better than Lang, as some rumors suggest (zednik for Lang) and he may cost the same (3.8M$) or somewhere near that, wouldnt he be a better choice than Lang ?


The reason I would probably go with Lang is that if you sing Arnott is has to be a multi year deal. I really doubt he'd sign a single year deal. And I dont think he's a good long term solution. Lang is a UFA after next year so we dont have to carry him to the 2007 season. That gives us the opportynity to find a better UFA center in 2007. I dont know what the 2007 UFA list will look like but I'm pretty sure there will be more decent centers.

znk is offline  
Old
05-13-2006, 11:52 PM
  #8
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,757
vCash: 500
The fact that Lang can be dropped after one season without buying him out appeals to me. It gives Gainey time to look for a longer term solution to the second line center quandary. I'm just not happy to saddle Kovalev with a center who can't score goals when the opportunities are handed to him on a silver platter.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 12:01 AM
  #9
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 500
I would go for Jeff Halpern as my righty center and put him on the fourth line.

Higgins - Koivu - Ryder
Zednik - Plekanec - Kovalev
Perezhogin - Bonk - Kostitsyn
Murray - Halpern - Begin

I doubt that any of the other kids are ready. Big guys tend to take awhile, so unless Latendresse TAKES a job, I would go slow with him. Lapierre and Ferland don't look ready either...I think Lapierre will take over at center when Bonk's contract is up (then Halpern could move up to the checking line...).

Halpern makes us tougher, grittier, better defensively and adds more character. He ranked 12th in the NHL with a 55.3 faceoff percentage.

Since Bonk is in a contract year, he might be persuaded to put in a second line effort...then drop Pleks to the third line.

Then sign for a two-way defenseman for $3.5M to play on our second pair.

Here are all the righty centers on NHL rosters.
Ryan Getzlaf
Bobby Holik
Kevyn Adams (tho not all that big)
Jim Dowd (small, UFA)
Dan Hinote (small, UFA)
Steve Yzerman (UFA)
Jason Arnott (UFA)
Robert Lang
Jarrett Stoll (not all that big)
Mike Peca (not big, UFA)
Craig Conroy (not big)
Jeremy Roenick (not big, UFA)
Wes Walz (small)
Marc Chouinard (tall but thin, UFA)
Mike Sillinger (small, UFA)
Scott Nichol (very small, UFA)
Alexei Yashin
Mike York (very small)
Jeremy Colliton (average)
Petteri Nokelainen (small)
Bryan Smolinski
Jason Spezza
Jeff Carter (200 lbs right now)
Joel Perrault (thin)
Jani Rita
Mats Sundin
Kyle Wellwood (small)
Jason Allison (UFA)
Ryan Kesler (avg)
Jeff Halpern (avg size, UFA)
Nolan Yonkman


Last edited by tinyzombies: 05-14-2006 at 12:06 AM.
tinyzombies is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 12:26 AM
  #10
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
I would go for Jeff Halpern as my righty center and put him on the fourth line.

Higgins - Koivu - Ryder
Zednik - Plekanec - Kovalev
Perezhogin - Bonk - Kostitsyn
Murray - Halpern - Begin

I doubt that any of the other kids are ready. Big guys tend to take awhile, so unless Latendresse TAKES a job, I would go slow with him. Lapierre and Ferland don't look ready either...I think Lapierre will take over at center when Bonk's contract is up (then Halpern could move up to the checking line...).

Halpern makes us tougher, grittier, better defensively and adds more character. He ranked 12th in the NHL with a 55.3 faceoff percentage.

Since Bonk is in a contract year, he might be persuaded to put in a second line effort...then drop Pleks to the third line.

Then sign for a two-way defenseman for $3.5M to play on our second pair.

Here are all the righty centers on NHL rosters.
Ryan Getzlaf
Bobby Holik
Kevyn Adams (tho not all that big)
Jim Dowd (small, UFA)
Dan Hinote (small, UFA)
Steve Yzerman (UFA)
Jason Arnott (UFA)
Robert Lang
Jarrett Stoll (not all that big)
Mike Peca (not big, UFA)
Craig Conroy (not big)
Jeremy Roenick (not big, UFA)
Wes Walz (small)
Marc Chouinard (tall but thin, UFA)
Mike Sillinger (small, UFA)
Scott Nichol (very small, UFA)
Alexei Yashin
Mike York (very small)
Jeremy Colliton (average)
Petteri Nokelainen (small)
Bryan Smolinski
Jason Spezza
Jeff Carter (200 lbs right now)
Joel Perrault (thin)
Jani Rita
Mats Sundin
Kyle Wellwood (small)
Jason Allison (UFA)
Ryan Kesler (avg)
Jeff Halpern (avg size, UFA)
Nolan Yonkman

You'd have to get Halpern out of Washington first. He's a D.C native, and captain of the team. I don't see him leaving.

Many of the players you listed are not centers. Nolan Yonkman is a defenseman.

You're a peculiar one, raketheleaves. Sometimes you have nice, insightful opinions, other times you strong-arm your opinions so hard while posting about Nolan Yonkman being a right-handed center at the same time.

Mike8 is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 04:49 AM
  #11
Rather Gingerly 1*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk


The reason I would probably go with Lang is that if you sing Arnott is has to be a multi year deal. I really doubt he'd sign a single year deal. And I dont think he's a good long term solution. Lang is a UFA after next year so we dont have to carry him to the 2007 season. That gives us the opportynity to find a better UFA center in 2007. I dont know what the 2007 UFA list will look like but I'm pretty sure there will be more decent centers.
I agree...Lang would not cost a bundle and he has averaged 70 points throughout his career.

Rather Gingerly 1* is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 09:32 AM
  #12
oli500
Registered User
 
oli500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kitchener
Posts: 4,610
vCash: 500
I personaly dont want robert lang as a are second line center. Hes not much of a upgrade on ribs and in detroit he played with some talented wingers and yet posted the same amount of points as ribeiro or close to it. Lang aint young anymore so his prone to injury and at 35 im sure he lost a step. Im not a ribeiro fan but if I were to pick between the two I would hang on to ribeiro because he'll give you the same amount of points fore a couple million dollars less. STAY AWAY FROM LANG


Theire are alot of other options we could do to upgrade are 2nd line center. Im sure richards will be available via trade. Savard and arnott are others I would love to have. We have the oportunity to land centers via free agency so why waste are trade chips on a center when we can use them to upgrade are defense. If we come up short than you consider a trade. Not before. Savard and arnott both have conections to the habs. savard probably grew up watching the habs and if we gave him an offer im sure he would think about it and as fore arnott he has the carbo-gainey conection.

oli500 is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 10:10 AM
  #13
Dan K
HFBoards Partner
 
Dan K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,176
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dan K
Quote:
Originally Posted by oli500
I personaly dont want robert lang as a are second line center. Hes not much of a upgrade on ribs and in detroit he played with some talented wingers and yet posted the same amount of points as ribeiro or close to it. Lang aint young anymore so his prone to injury and at 35 im sure he lost a step. Im not a ribeiro fan but if I were to pick between the two I would hang on to ribeiro because he'll give you the same amount of points fore a couple million dollars less. STAY AWAY FROM LANG
MIKE RIBEIRO
2003-04 Montreal Canadiens NHL 81 20 45 65
2005-06 Montreal Canadiens NHL 79 16 35 51

ROBERT LANG
2003-04 Washington Capitals NHL 63 29 45 74
2003-04 Detroit Red Wings NHL 6 1 4 5
2005-06 Detroit Red Wings NHL 72 20 42 62

Both Lang's point productions and certainly PPG are well ahead of Ribeiro's over the last 2 seasons, even if Lang has "lost a step."

One would also hope that Lang and Kovalev could recreate some of the magical chemistry they had in Pittsburgh together. Sure Lang is getting older, and as such is more of a short-term fix, but if all he'll cost is, say, Zednik, and seeing as he only has 1 year left on his deal, I'd certainly take him over Ribs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oli500
Theire are alot of other options we could do to upgrade are 2nd line center. Im sure richards will be available via trade. Savard and arnott are others I would love to have. We have the oportunity to land centers via free agency so why waste are trade chips on a center when we can use them to upgrade are defense. If we come up short than you consider a trade. Not before. Savard and arnott both have conections to the habs. savard probably grew up watching the habs and if we gave him an offer im sure he would think about it and as fore arnott he has the carbo-gainey conection.
Richards may be available on the market, but unless we're ready to give up a Higgins or Markov, plus more, as a part of the deal, I don't think we have the chips to land him. Savard is very talented, sure, but he's also only 5'10" and shoots left, when what we went most is a big, right-handed centre (note Lang is 6'2" and shoots right). I'm also sure Savard will get close to or even more than $5 million this Summer from someone.

I'm definitely in favour of acquiring Arnott if the salary will be similar to that of Lang's (say in the $3.8M - $4.2M range). Jay is 6'3" and shoots right, and is a couple of years younger than Robert, so if bringing him to Montreal seems feasible for both parties, then sure thing.

Dan K is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 10:58 AM
  #14
digitalmonkey*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 951
vCash: 500
Lang does not fit with the plan we should be implementing as he is too old. If you're gonna bring in veterans at least bring in some that can teach the young kids. I'd rather see the Habs snatch Mike Keane from Manitoba than waste millions on Arnott or Lang. Well, maybe not Keane, but you get the picture.

digitalmonkey* is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 11:13 AM
  #15
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
You'd have to get Halpern out of Washington first. He's a D.C native, and captain of the team. I don't see him leaving.

Many of the players you listed are not centers. Nolan Yonkman is a defenseman.

You're a peculiar one, raketheleaves. Sometimes you have nice, insightful opinions, other times you strong-arm your opinions so hard while posting about Nolan Yonkman being a right-handed center at the same time.
Yonkman played some fourth line center for Washington this year.

I don't think I'm peculiar for not liking wimpy players. I find it strange that people will be suckers to go for these type of guys. I just think some of you guys don't know what it takes to win or have never seen Montreal win a Cup. You can't even afford one of these wimps on your team. Every man has to contribute.

I mean, you'll get people in here arguing until they're blue in the face that Brisebois is a good defenseman or that Ribeiro should be the #1 center (tho not anymore). And this fascination with wimps persists. I don't get it.

And while there is this fascination, the minute you talk about some of our bigger guys lacking agility or vision, or puck moving skills, you'll get jumped on there too.

I think it's just a Montreal thing...


Last edited by tinyzombies: 05-14-2006 at 11:19 AM.
tinyzombies is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 11:36 AM
  #16
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
Yonkman played some fourth line center for Washington this year.

No, he didn't. Evidence:

http://www.nhl.com/nhlstats/stats

Go to Washington, RTSS Stats on Regular season. You'll see 0s next to Yonkman for his faceoff wins/losses/total faceoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
I don't think I'm peculiar for not liking wimpy players. I find it strange that people will be suckers to go for these type of guys. I just think some of you guys don't know what it takes to win or have never seen Montreal win a Cup. You can't even afford one of these wimps on your team. Every man has to contribute.
Well, it doesn't have to do with the wimpy-players bit, but more to do with the fact that you come out of left field with these inexplicable perspective on things. It's generally well written, so I like reading your posts, but that doesn't take away from the peculiar aspect of it all.

Like this, for example. You say that Montrealers who like these wimpy players must not have watched Hab Cup wins before. To that I say: remember Stephan Lebeau? He did not have a minor role in Montreal's last Cup win.

How about Schneider? Burns often accused him of being wimpy, you know.

I think you would agree that Brisebois is as wimpy as it gets. Guess what Montreal Cup winning team he was on? Or JJ Daigneault?

That's four wimpy players on Montreal's last Cup win. Yet you insist that Cup winners can't have wimpy players, and anyone who wants wimpy players hasn't witnessed a Montreal Cup win.

If you'd like, I can point out at least one wimpy player on every Cup winning team. Fact is: teams can afford to have wimpy players if they can contribute in other ways. Even NJ has had wimpy players (Sykora).

Mike8 is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 12:01 PM
  #17
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
No, he didn't. Evidence:

http://www.nhl.com/nhlstats/stats

Go to Washington, RTSS Stats on Regular season. You'll see 0s next to Yonkman for his faceoff wins/losses/total faceoffs.



Well, it doesn't have to do with the wimpy-players bit, but more to do with the fact that you come out of left field with these inexplicable perspective on things. It's generally well written, so I like reading your posts, but that doesn't take away from the peculiar aspect of it all.

Like this, for example. You say that Montrealers who like these wimpy players must not have watched Hab Cup wins before. To that I say: remember Stephan Lebeau? He did not have a minor role in Montreal's last Cup win.

How about Schneider? Burns often accused him of being wimpy, you know.

I think you would agree that Brisebois is as wimpy as it gets. Guess what Montreal Cup winning team he was on? Or JJ Daigneault?

That's four wimpy players on Montreal's last Cup win. Yet you insist that Cup winners can't have wimpy players, and anyone who wants wimpy players hasn't witnessed a Montreal Cup win.

If you'd like, I can point out at least one wimpy player on every Cup winning team. Fact is: teams can afford to have wimpy players if they can contribute in other ways. Even NJ has had wimpy players (Sykora).
You're carrying your argument too far. Yes, there are wimpy players on every team, but a predominantly wimpy team doesn't stand a chance. The Habs were able to beat the Broad Street Bullies in the mid-1970s not just because they had Lafleur and Shutt and Cournoyer but also because they had their share of burly guys who could also play. The 1976 playoffs were decided once and for all when Larry Robinson pummeled Dave Schultz.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 12:03 PM
  #18
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck
You're carrying your argument too far. Yes, there are wimpy players on every team, but a predominantly wimpy team doesn't stand a chance. The Habs were able to beat the Broad Street Bullies in the mid-1970s not just because they had Lafleur and Shutt and Cornoyer but also because they had their share of burly guys who could also play. The 1976 playoffs were decided once and for all when Larry Robinson pummeled Dave Schultz.
How am I carrying my argument too far when I'm saying every Cup winner has had at least one wimpy player? I never stated anything regarding 'predominantly wimpy'; I distinctly stated that teams can afford to have wimpy players if they can contribute in other ways, which excludes the possibility of having a predominantly wimpy club.

Mike8 is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 12:27 PM
  #19
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
How am I carrying my argument too far when I'm saying every Cup winner has had at least one wimpy player? I never stated anything regarding 'predominantly wimpy'; I distinctly stated that teams can afford to have wimpy players if they can contribute in other ways, which excludes the possibility of having a predominantly wimpy club.
Daignault was a good puck mover as was most of our defense in 93. Our forwards were mostly gritty, two-way players. If you want to go case-by-case, don't ignore the facts.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 12:53 PM
  #20
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
How am I carrying my argument too far when I'm saying every Cup winner has had at least one wimpy player? I never stated anything regarding 'predominantly wimpy'; I distinctly stated that teams can afford to have wimpy players if they can contribute in other ways, which excludes the possibility of having a predominantly wimpy club.
The connotation of your original post was a defense of wimps in response to raketheleaves, who said he doesn't like wimps. You've got a chip on your shoulder and I don't choose to itemize while you cherrypick your favorite wimps. I don't mind wimps so long as they're productive (you know perfectly well what I'm referring to). I'm glad the new rules make it harder for Tucker, Domi, and Roberts to intimidate and even injure star players with impunity (the way Gary Suter crosschecked Paul Kariya in the head). Now we have a better chance of seeing hockey as it should be played.

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 01:17 PM
  #21
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 500
Brisebois played well in the 93 playoffs. He played a simple third pair game and moved the puck simply. The rest of his career? No. He won't take a hit to make a play and I think he needs glasses.

As for wimps. I'll clarify further since you are a semantics wizard. I actually like Ribeiro. I think he'll take a hit to make a play. He's a limited player in that his size/skating/shot are average or below average. I thought he took strides this year, despite his point total going down. That doesn't mean he fits in with our team.

Lafleur was the same way. He rarely backed down to anyone trying to intimidate him. And he had Robinson to come in if a Milbury was getting too stupid.

I'm not talking about getting goons, but you need character guys with size too.

There are several guys on our team who will never win a Stanley Cup.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 01:28 PM
  #22
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck
The connotation of your original post was a defense of wimps in response to raketheleaves, who said he doesn't like wimps.
Yes. And then you attempt to exaggerate my position as though I'm claiming a predominantly-wimpy team is fine. There was no connotation to this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck
You've got a chip on your shoulder and I don't choose to itemize while you cherrypick your favorite wimps.
I have no 'favourite wimps'. I did not mention any 'favourites' in this thread. Don't distract the point.

And what in the world are you talking about having a 'chip on my shoulder' or not 'choosing to itemize'?

The only 'chip' I have on my shoulder is when people interrupt perfectly fine discussions with inane semantic discussions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck
I don't mind wimps so long as they're productive (you know perfectly well what I'm referring to).
In other words, you decided to exaggerate what I'm saying, contradict me, play a holier-than-thou card, then wind up saying the same thing as me. Wonderfully productive.

Mike8 is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 01:31 PM
  #23
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
Brisebois played well in the 93 playoffs. He played a simple third pair game and moved the puck simply. The rest of his career? No. He won't take a hit to make a play and I think he needs glasses.

As for wimps. I'll clarify further since you are a semantics wizard. I actually like Ribeiro. I think he'll take a hit to make a play. He's a limited player in that his size/skating/shot are average or below average. I thought he took strides this year, despite his point total going down. That doesn't mean he fits in with our team.

Lafleur was the same way. He rarely backed down to anyone trying to intimidate him. And he had Robinson to come in if a Milbury was getting too stupid.

I'm not talking about getting goons, but you need character guys with size too.

There are several guys on our team who will never win a Stanley Cup.
I agree. But the bottom-line is that wimpy players can be fine if they find a role for themselves. That was my original point, and now you seem to agree with it despite originally claiming wimpy players have no place on any Cup contenders. No semantics there.

Mike8 is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 01:40 PM
  #24
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
Yes. And then you attempt to exaggerate my position as though I'm claiming a predominantly-wimpy team is fine. There was no connotation to this point.



I have no 'favourite wimps'. I did not mention any 'favourites' in this thread. Don't distract the point.

And what in the world are you talking about having a 'chip on my shoulder' or not 'choosing to itemize'?

The only 'chip' I have on my shoulder is when people interrupt perfectly fine discussions with inane semantic discussions.




In other words, you decided to exaggerate what I'm saying, contradict me, play a holier-than-thou card, then wind up saying the same thing as me. Wonderfully productive.
Your haughtiness betrays you. What makes you think you were transacting a perfectly fine discussion rather than an inane one?

Teufelsdreck is offline  
Old
05-14-2006, 01:42 PM
  #25
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8
I agree. But the bottom-line is that wimpy players can be fine if they find a role for themselves. That was my original point, and now you seem to agree with it despite originally claiming wimpy players have no place on any Cup contenders. No semantics there.
There is NO place for wimpy players on a Stanley Cup team. Brisebois was willing to pay the price during that Cup run but during no other time in his career. His role was also reduced. If you pay the price, you are not a wimp, technically. Through the grind of subsequent NHL seasons, turns out he was a wimp.

You can't name me one wimp on any Stanley Cup winner, ever.

Also, the trend is to bigger players. Look at the points leader race this year as compared to other years.

I posted facts elsewhere and am not going to repeat them and I'm officially bored of this argument....

tinyzombies is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:34 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.