I find this to be a very short sighted view of things. Bouillon is the same weight as Rafalski, but a couple inches shorter. He's heavier than the best defenseman in the NHL (Lidstrom), and a couple inches shorter. That means he's thicker, and has more muscle mass than the both of them, yet he's too small for the NHL? Muscle mass is what counts, not height. Traverse is taller than most NHL players yet he's as ineffective physically as any player in the league.
Bouillon's only deflected one puck into Montreal's net, and that was when he was stopping a cross ice pass, so your comments there are unfounded.
He also abandoned the crease, allowing Tucker to skate out from behind the net for an easy goal. That was more painful to behold than the deflection.
Weight? Muscle mass? Does that mean that someone who is 4 feet in height but weighs a muscular 300 pounds could be a defenseman?
Height is a big asset because it means longer arms and legs. It imparts greater reach. It takes away room for a forward who can't skate around the stick. It also allows a better chance of intercepting or receiving a pass or blocking a shot. It means greater leverage and a harder shot. It means a longer stride. You can keep your 5'8" defensemen.
Sundstrom is a 1.2 to 1.4 mil$ NHL player right now. He wins 1.9 with SJ paying 25% witch means MTL pay him around 1.3 and it's OK. At 1.3 mil$, I would sign him for 2 years.
Doesn't matter what we pay him right now, his official salary is 1.95M, meaning if Gainey wants to keep him this summer, when his current contract ends, he'll have to qualify him at this number + 10% (2.15M). Far too much for Sundstrom.
If he accepts to take a pay cut to remain in Montreal, then I see a future. But why would he do that? He'll probably just refuse, become UFA and sign elsewhere. I would be quite surprised if Sundstrom during his short stay here fell in love so much with the city and its butt freezing whether that he decides to slash his paycheck in half to remain a Hab.
now , i am confuse about the meaning of the expression '' Bouillon sucks ! ''
I like Bouillon, the only hab i see fit to replace him is Dykhuis, which only had one bad seasons but is usually very good. But to say that Bouillon sucks, is just plain stupid. I know that Rivet has been playing better but to say that Bouillon is only a 7th D-man.. then what the hell is Rivet? an 8th D-man. Traverse maybe a 12th D-man.
I know that Rivet has been playing better but to say that Bouillon is only a 7th D-man.. then what the hell is Rivet? an 8th D-man. Traverse maybe a 12th D-man.
This year, up until about 5 games ago...yes, Rivet has been about as good as an eighth defenseman. Traverse is no better than a 12th. He's hardly good enough to play for the Bulldogs.
I'm not a big Boullion fan, as I do not believe defensemen should be used as energy players or enforcers (their job is too important). But I don't see much harm in playing him 12 minutes a game or so. To do that, however, we would need another defenseman to be a workhorse, logging Gonchar or Chelios-type mins. per game. I don't think there's anyone on the Habs right now with the conditioning or talent to do this, although a case could be made for Souray. If Sheldon can keep up his current level of play, and if we can find a partner for him who can keep up (forget Quintal), I have no problem with Bouillon-Rivet on pairing 3, logging fewer minutes than now and not matching up against top lines.
Eventually, I think it will look like this:
Q will go first, as his usefulness seems to be diminishing game by game. When Hainsey is finally ready Bouillon will likely be relegated to the bench.
In my opinion, there's still too much uncertainty on our blueline. Brisebois has been playing well this year, but we've seen this before. He could revert to his Breeze-by alter-ego at any time. That would create huge hole, since he is counted on to play top-4 minutes.
Markov is another question mark. Last year, he seemed to have established himself as a bona fide two-way star, at the very least a number-2 man if not a number one. But now his D looks shaky again.
Rivet, after playing solid stay-at-home defense for years, has slipped big time. I think he may be slowing down, making it harder to get back into position to cover up his mistakes.
There are two options to solve this problem:
1) Wait for Hainsey to develop into a consistent two-way defenseman.
2) Make a trade to acquire a veteran defenseman.
I like the second option myself, and would particularly like to see them get Hamrlik, but it would cost us. The first would cost us nothing in terms of money or prospects. I think if I were to go the second route, Hossa would be the guy I would dangle. I still have hopes for him, but I think he would get us the greatest return while hurting us the least. I'm thinking about a deal like the following:
Hossa + Rivet + a 3rd rounder for Hamrlik. We eat part of Rivet's salary.
This would solidify our defensive core and give us a legitimate threat from the point on our second PP unit. If the return isn't enough for Milbury, I would be willing to offer a better pick or an additional one. I don't think it would cost us much more than the players above, nor should we offer much more.
We would still be another goalscoring forward from being a <i>good</i> team, but our special teams would improve by making this one move alone and we'd be a lock for the playoffs, IMO.
Last edited by Guy Caballero: 12-22-2003 at 11:38 AM.