What's funniest to me is fans taking his comment so personally, as if he stood you up to listen to a styx bootleg at home. He was a decent but overhyped player with good potential and now he's gone. Big deal, we'll move on and best of luck to him. I'm sure he'll regain his form (as in a 15-20 goal third liner).
I was just wondering if someone knew who the guy to marinaro's right is. The guy seems to be really smart, he knows his stuff and he knows how to express himself. I'm beginning to see why Jean charles and Jean perron are on the other side of the table.
I'm not impressed by Lats' interview. The Habs did not give him a chance? Yeah, what about having him make the NHL at 19? Friggin Bobby Ryan who is 10x the player he'll ever was drafted in the same year and made the NHL for good last year only after starting in the AHL.
The ********* he is, he threatened to re-enter the draft if he was sent to junior and not kept with the Habs that year (not AHL eligible)...what was BG supposed to do? I would've given him the boot right there, from the getgo he had a whiny mentality.
Pure speculation. How is it that the medias are always saying stupidities and nonsense EXCEPT when it pleases us?
There is something that I really don't like about this guy. When he says that he wasn't given a chance to prove himself he just demonstrates that he was waiting for the other to make him better. Like if playing on a third line keeps you away from being any good and putting on points here and there. To me that is a major flaw.
If you take a look a Pyatt and White, both tries to make there liners better by working hard. Tender was using his line number and time on ice to say that he wasn't producing by telling that. I find it sad.
Seriously. He was given opportunities, even top six opportunities occasionally, and he gives us 2 goals and 1 assist through 20 games? Seriously? That's showing a lot of effort. We gave you the opportunities, you just took them for granted...
With Guillaume, he can be a great player, a Tomas Holmstrom like player if he utilizes his size properly, but for some reason, he doesn't do that, and that's the reason he's on his way out of Montreal.
Plekanec paid his dues in the AHL, spent most of this season playing with hams (sleeping Kost, D'Ago, etc) and he's the team's best player.
No excuses for Lats allowed.
It could have a Ribeiro effect. Except Ribeiro was able to turn Dagenais into a legitimate threat, while Lats is waiting for others to make him better.
Pouliot is also problematic. Let's see what Martin can do with him.
When Gainey made him a rookie, Lats wasn't eligible for the AHL. Also, the organization thought he learned everything he could in Drummondville, he would be better off playing against men, and were worried about his two very recent concussions and felt they could monitor/control this issue better with him playing for the organization and with their medical staff.
Still, he could have still let him in Drummondville or better yet....send him back when he was eligible. 'Cause clearly, he had tons of things to learn after that 1st year. But he had things to learn 'cause despite that big body of his, he had to learned to use it properly and dominate the league. And obviously that's something we didn't know at the time, but if he would stayed, Brassard was still there but injured himself for the year and Latendresse would have had the chance to show what he could do with another guy and work harder. But mostly, it would have been the year that the Habs could have told him EXACTLY what they expected from him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens
Speculation, though mon ami. Not fact. The facts are that for a big dude, he was simply not the physical presence he should be. That rests clearly in his back yard. If I'm 6'2" 225.....I'm my opponents worst nightmare every shift of every game. The opponent is dreading the second I jump over the boards. This rarely, if ever happened with GL....and THAT would had put him over the top and was COMPLETELY his call.
He never was a physical presence. He was a big guy who was playing a small game. Sniper around the net and not necessarily in front of it. And clearly he had some troubles adjusting to the game he was asked to play.
In the end we drafted a big and slow finess player and asked him to become a 3rd line grinder.
I don't know but usually when I draft a guy, it's because I like what I'm seeing and the only think in my mind would be for him to improve what he's doing and be able to do what he did in Juniors to translate it in the NHL.
It is possible for guys to transform their style and become a defensive player à la Carbonneau etc....but you knew that it would have never been possible for Latendresse.
Still, he could have still let him in Drummondville or better yet....send him back when he was eligible. 'Cause clearly, he had tons of things to learn after that 1st year. But he had things to learn 'cause despite that big body of his, he had to learned to use it properly and dominate the league. And obviously that's something we didn't know at the time, but if he would stayed, Brassard was still there but injured himself for the year and Latendresse would have had the chance to show what he could do with another guy and work harder. But mostly, it would have been the year that the Habs could have told him EXACTLY what they expected from him.
So if you're so adamant that Gainey should have kept Lats in the Q one more year and then have him play a couple of years in the AHL (hindsight's always 20/20), you must be ecstatic that Gainey was able to trade Lats for a player who was drafted 4th overall (41 picks before Lats) and who did go back to Junior and then pay his dues in the AHL the way Lats should have.
Amen to this. Latendresse has ZERO skill, ZERO talent...something Leclair had both of.
And **** him too, whiney *********, I hope Lapierre wakes up or he should be next, along with his buddies Georges and Marc-André.
I was no great fan of Latendresse, especially of his offseason workout habits (especially compared to Lapierre who definitely puts in the work at the gym) but he was very poorly handled by MTL management. He was rushed in the nhl and his technical deficiencies were never addressed.
Also, it should be noted that he scored over 15 goals in every season while in a tweener top6-bottom6 role. The potential is there, he has the size and the hands. His skating and positioning are his biggest problems; those can be fixed.
Benoit Pouliot. We'll what he can bring to the table with the change of atmosphere but Gui is the better player when looking at track records.
So if you're so adamant that Gainey should have kept Lats in the Q one more year and then have him play a couple of years in the AHL (hindsight's always 20/20), you must be ecstatic that Gainey was able to trade Lats for a player who was drafted 4th overall (41 picks before Lats) and who did go back to Junior and then pay his dues in the AHL the way Lats should have.
In that case, it has absolutely nothing to do with hindsight since I thought the same thing for Latendresse when we decided to keep him.
As far as getting Pouliot for him, well I don't use the draft rank to explain if I am or not happy about a trade. How would you feel if we would trade Halak for Hugh Jessiman? For the style he's been asked to play, it's not hindsight to know that he would have benefited for some playing time in lower leagues since only the exceptionals go from Juniors to the NHL and never goes back to the AHL. As far as Pouliot is concerned, well it has to be a concern that a guy with that talent and with all the time to develop his game was never able to do so. 'Cause no matter what ranks you are picked from, each case is different. In Lats case, it might be a developing problem. In Pouliot's case....it might be a bust problem....
Though I will not already throw the towel in Pouliot's case....I hope nobody does 'cause that would be real stupid. The expression fresh start exist for one reason....'cause it might actually happen.
Kinda sucks we went from a "what if, perhaps in the future" to another one. I guess that's what happens when you trade your players at the lowest of their value, you don't get much more in return.
I heard on CJAD that they were doing some PP drills, and Guillaume would park himself at the top of the circle. They stopped the drill, Pearns told him to go to the front of the net and park himself in front of the goalies crease. They started the drill again, and lo and behold, Guillaume was back at the top of the circle and not in front of the goalie crease.
How long does it take for someone to understand such a simple set of instructions.
To Do List
1. Park ur @$$ infront of the goalie's Crease
2. Stay there
In that case, it has absolutely nothing to do with hindsight since I thought the same thing for Latendresse when we decided to keep him.
As far as getting Pouliot for him, well I don't use the draft rank to explain if I am or not happy about a trade. How would you feel if we would trade Halak for Hugh Jessiman? For the style he's been asked to play, it's not hindsight to know that he would have benefited for some playing time in lower leagues since only the exceptionals go from Juniors to the NHL and never goes back to the AHL. As far as Pouliot is concerned, well it has to be a concern that a guy with that talent and with all the time to develop his game was never able to do so. 'Cause no matter what ranks you are picked from, each case is different. In Lats case, it might be a developing problem. In Pouliot's case....it might be a bust problem....
Though I will not already throw the towel in Pouliot's case....I hope nobody does 'cause that would be real stupid. The expression fresh start exist for one reason....'cause it might actually happen.
Or maybe Habs management did the right thing with Lats development (he did score 16 goals as a rookie) but he hasn't improved significantly and his potential is limited because of poor footspeed as well as suspect drive and determination. I'm sure if he went the Pouliot development route and still had only 3 points, people would be blaming the organization for ruining his confidence by sending him back to Junior as a 19 year old after his second dominant training camp.
Back to the topic, I actually don't care about Lats exit comments that everyone is talking about but I won't miss watching him huff-and-puff after skating one length of the ice. His skating stride is so bad that he could be the best physically conditioned athlete in the world and he'd still tire quicker than anyone else because of the labour involved in his skating stride. I've never seen a pro hockey player always look so winded after a whistle. His footspeed will always limit his effectiveness and his potential. I'm looking forward to a speed upgrade in his lineup spot (whether it's Pouliot or anyone else slotted there). Jacques Martin isn't stupid and I'm willing to bet that he had a great deal of input into this trade.
Kinda sucks we went from a "what if, perhaps in the future" to another one. I guess that's what happens when you trade your players at the lowest of their value, you don't get much more in return.
when was Lats value high?
he's been drafted as a 2nd round pick and has never proven that he's worth more than a 2nd round pick.
What's good is that we could get "another one" on the way back.
Pouliot is x 10 better than Niinimaa as far as "returns" are concerned
I (well, actually my uncle) have every single Habs game from the last 20 years on tape (now on several DVDs).
Every holiday I watch about 6 solid hours of Habs games from this period with my uncles.
I've seen Leclair play and the only comparasion to Latendresse is that they are both big. That's it.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. And before kent_whatever asks, I had my license well before the Habs last Cup win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontrealHabitant
Fine, looks like hes been playing with awful players.
Seems like it. Last year he played a lot with the Boogeyman, but this year he was mostly on the wing opposite Belanger and either Kobasew or Brodziak. Those guys aren't bad.
Last edited by Habs10Habs: 11-24-2009 at 10:04 AM.
Reason: Merge
