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

Matvichuk signs 4yr, 8 mil contract with Jersey

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-12-2004, 12:08 PM
  #1
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,939
vCash: 500
Matvichuk signs 4yr, 8 mil contract with Jersey

Too bad. This is one guy that really could have helped us!

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 12:24 PM
  #2
Munchausen
Full Time A-hole
 
Munchausen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stuck in traffic
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
Too bad. This is one guy that really could have helped us!
I'd be shocked to see Gainey go after a Dman. We have enough, no need to add an other one. Gainey wants Hainsey to play and for that, there needs to be room.

Good deal for NJ. Matvichuk is on the decline and I'm not sure he'll be that great of a contributor in 4 years but at that price, they could take the risk.

Munchausen is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 05:14 PM
  #3
Rather Gingerly 1*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
This is a good signing. Getting a solid NHL d-man for 2 million a season is a good deal. Lou doesn't make many mistakes.

Rather Gingerly 1* is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 05:17 PM
  #4
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Matvichuk would have be a good no.5 d-man here! Too bad...we can't sign them all!
And Rivet earn 3 millions a year

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 05:17 PM
  #5
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,939
vCash: 500
So, which is it, is he in decline, or is it a good signing?

I think it's a great signing. Dallas tried to play him on a top pairing, that's why he's considered in decline imo. He would have been on the third pair for us and would have been dynamite. He can play either side as well...

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 05:26 PM
  #6
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,551
vCash: 500
Yeah, I wish the Habs had stepped up for him too. Or that they step up for one of the remaining free agent D. (Although I'm not REALLY worried). But I wouldn't want to start a season with our current defense corps and have any strong expectation of making the playoffs. Sure, we start out with a full set. But "what if..." (Hainsey bombs, Souray and/or Brisebois succumb to their injuries, etc). We can definitely use one more body to rely on, if we're planning on being competitive.

On the otherhand, if we really do have a strong priority on a development approach, and really aren't bothered at all about competitiveness, that's very ok too, and we don't *need* to add anybody.

Whether or not Matvichuk would have been a really good one to add or not is open to debate; I saw him a couple of times last year and thought he was abysmal. But he has been around, and possesses experience and fundamental skill at his position, so maybe he just needs a change of scenery? At any rate, New Jersey paid the going rate (see O'Donnell and Klee signings) for stable veteran D, so no knock on them there.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 06:03 PM
  #7
Tuggy
Registered User
 
Tuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Saint John
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,952
vCash: 1484
Matvichuk is on the severe decline in his career. I am glad to see him sign somewhere else. Personally I think that defense corps is just fine. Especially with the emergence of Komisarek in the playoffs last season.

Tuggy is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 07:24 PM
  #8
Mooch
Registered User
 
Mooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NC/Toronto/Florida
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,960
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Mooch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuggy
Matvichuk is on the severe decline in his career. I am glad to see him sign somewhere else. Personally I think that defense corps is just fine. Especially with the emergence of Komisarek in the playoffs last season.
I really dont think we need another D, and not just becauase we dont have room. Our D is young and improving. Witht the hopefull addition of Hainsey next season, we are starting to see our furture in the back end. By sign another D, we would be taking a step back. Plus Hainsey MUST play next season. Its his lst chance, hes iether gona run or stay put. We have to give him that shot, because if we dont, well.......we may be sorry one day imo!

Mooch is offline  
Old
07-12-2004, 07:27 PM
  #9
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
I would never have given Matvichuk a four year deal, but thats just me.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
07-13-2004, 11:07 AM
  #10
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
It's a 4 y / 7.2M Finally. 1.8 per year.

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
07-13-2004, 11:30 AM
  #11
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,939
vCash: 500
$1.7 a year for Matvichuk or $1.1 for Bouillon...hmmm.....

I am not at all happy with our defense and it cost us in the playoffs big time last year.

We can rebuild, but the kids need veterans to lean on. You can't just throw all the kids in there and say, it's ok if we lose. It's NOT ok to lose, ever.

KOMISAREK is not ready for a top 4 spot. We'll have to slowly break him in in the #6 spot. He was ok for the most part in the playoffs, but the more he was forced to carry the puck, the less effective he became and even cost us game 4 when he panicked in the neutral zone and handed the puck to Richards. He won't be ready for top 4 minutes for another year or 2 or even 3 imo. In fact, it would help him a lot to have an experienced partner playing left D to settle him down... A GUY LIKE MATVICHUK.

Brisebois and Rivet are both third pairing defensemen. Neither of them is particularly good with the puck. Brisebois is soft and Rivet has been injured for several years and only plays physical occasionally.

Bouillon is a #7 defenseman. He's a good skater, hits well along the boards, but runs around in his own end, can't move anyone in front of the net and has little offense. Too small.

Hainsey is not ready and may never be ready. He shouldn't just be handed a spot this year imo. In fact, it could hamper Komisarek's development. I would sit his butt in the pressbox until he's ready to work and/or improves his quickness and play in his own end and his head above all.

Souray is always getting hurt and has a lot to prove this year.

Markov had personal problems last year and is probably the only guy we can rely on at this point.

I've seen Beauchemin several times and he just doesn't look like an NHLer to me. Archer is a couple years away, O'Byrne and Korpikari are 2-3 or even 4-5 years away.

That is NOT a solid defense.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
07-13-2004, 11:51 AM
  #12
Squeaky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,195
vCash: 500
How can people say our defense isn't good enough to make it into the POs? We got 93 points last year with this defense + Quintal. Quintal does not make a team get like 15 extra points over the course of a season. Komisarek is an upgrade on Quintal, so if anything, our defense is stronger than last year. Our offense is going to be stronger too, with Bonk over Juneau, the probable addition of a top line winger, and some talented rookies coming to replace guys like Dackell, who couldn't score in the Grotto at the Playboy mansion.

Souray can be Komi's partner, and then Komi has his experienced partner to play with. Same goes for whichever young guy gets to play with Breezy. I wouldn't call Rivet a veteran, but he has been around for a while, so he won't hurt a younger guy by playing with him either.

I would also be quite comfortable calling Breezy a top 4 defenseman. The season before last I wouldn't, but he had a strong year last year, easily top 4 material. And don't give me that "he always played in safe situations" garbage, he was decent all year, in every situation. I'm also not liking the way Rivet is being treated, he's fine in a 5th or 6th defenseman role. He's usually pretty solid.

The only real questions on D for us this year are Hainsey and Souray. If Hansey plays well, great. If not, Bouillon showed he was capable of filling in, and Beauchemin might be able to play a bit too, so that does not worry me too much. Souray is the real concern for me. If he can find the net like he did in the first half last season, our D is looking pretty good to me. If he can't, we're short one top 4 guy, but lots of teams can say that. Even if Souray loses his touch offensively, the D should be plenty good enough to get the Habs into the playoffs.

Squeaky is offline  
Old
07-13-2004, 12:08 PM
  #13
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeaky
"Komisarek is an upgrade on Quintal." Komisarek doesn't have the hands or vision or experience of Quintal. Quintal is the better defenseman right now in my mind, and I think Quintal is washed up. Komisarek still has a ways to go before he is better than Quintal.

"Souray can be Komi's partner, and then Komi has his experienced partner to play with."
Souray is not a lock to repeat what he did last year.

"Same goes for whichever young guy gets to play with Breezy."
Brisebois scares me. HE needs an experienced partner to play with, let alone be some sort of veteran for a youngster. I would hate for anything Brisebois does to rub off on a young player.

"I wouldn't call Rivet a veteran, but he has been around for a while, so he won't hurt a younger guy by playing with him either."
Rivet's ok, but is really a third pairing defenseman, face facts.

"I would also be quite comfortable calling Breezy a top 4 defenseman. The season before last I wouldn't, but he had a strong year last year, easily top 4 material."
I disagree. Just because he played like a #6 defenseman and chipped it off the glass in the #4 spot doesn't make him a #4 defenseman. He was also awful on the powerplay. I hate to have to roll the dice with this guy every year. Some people are happy if our defense "doesn't hurt us", but I want a GOOD defense. There is a difference.

"Even if Souray loses his touch offensively, the D should be plenty good enough to get the Habs into the playoffs."
But we could win the Cup if we shore up our defense. Do you just want to make the playoffs?
People are quick to blame Theodore, but I'd like to see what Theodore can do with a good defense in front of him. I bet he could win us a Cup.


Last edited by tinyzombies: 07-13-2004 at 12:35 PM.
tinyzombies is offline  
Old
07-13-2004, 12:48 PM
  #14
Squeaky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,195
vCash: 500
Posting comments inside quotes is mean.

I completely agree that the D would need work for the team to contend. I'm just saying that it's good enough to take the team into the POs as it stands now. The habs will not contend next year. The offense isn't ready yet, the PP isn't ready yet, the PK isn't ready yet, and the Defense isn't ready yet. I'm content with the defense as is, because I know it is going to get better. Komi's ceiling is sky-high, as is Hainsey's (though Komi looks like a much safer bet right now.) Markov has already played like a top-4 guy, so I have high hopes for him in the future. A top-4 UFA will probably be in order sometime down the road, but that time is not now, and that guy is not Matvichuk.

Squeaky is offline  
Old
07-13-2004, 01:16 PM
  #15
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeaky
How can people say our defense isn't good enough to make it into the POs?
For me, it's not about how much better or worse we got ourselves (we haven't changed significantly), but rather about the teams behind us. We were one hot stretch ahead of Buffalo, basically. Meanwhile, Atlanta has added to their D and looks to be stronger in net, while Florida is also expected to make a lot of noise with their new look. Those are some young, hungry teams too, and I think we'll have to be even better than last season just to make the playoffs next year.
Quote:
We got 93 points last year with this defense + Quintal. Quintal does not make a team get like 15 extra points over the course of a season.
Komisarek is an upgrade on Quintal, so if anything, our defense is stronger than last year.
Agree on that! Quintal did more harm than good, and Komi should step it up.

Meanwhile, in an ideal world, Souray won't get hurt, Breezy's season wasn't a fluke, and we all know that Markov and Rivet can be more consistent than they were at times last year. Right? We know this?

And as much as you want to mention Bonk and the forwards helping out... what if (as looks possible) we have a few more rookies in the lineup? No Dowd, Juneau. Who is on the PK shifts? I don't see the change in forward personnel being an improvement defensively.

In short, if we're status quo with last year, I'm worried.

But on the bright side (!?), there probably won't be any hockey next year, so, if we step another year down the line, there's another chance to grab some FAs, a chance to buy Brisebois out, and we have TONS of time to evaluate the situation. So whether we're happy with the current group or not, there's no need to panic. Lots of time for things to sort themselves out.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
07-13-2004, 11:56 PM
  #16
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
$1.7 a year for Matvichuk or $1.1 for Bouillon...hmmm.....

I am not at all happy with our defense and it cost us in the playoffs big time last year.

We can rebuild, but the kids need veterans to lean on. You can't just throw all the kids in there and say, it's ok if we lose. It's NOT ok to lose, ever.

KOMISAREK is not ready for a top 4 spot. We'll have to slowly break him in in the #6 spot. He was ok for the most part in the playoffs, but the more he was forced to carry the puck, the less effective he became and even cost us game 4 when he panicked in the neutral zone and handed the puck to Richards. He won't be ready for top 4 minutes for another year or 2 or even 3 imo. In fact, it would help him a lot to have an experienced partner playing left D to settle him down... A GUY LIKE MATVICHUK.

Brisebois and Rivet are both third pairing defensemen. Neither of them is particularly good with the puck. Brisebois is soft and Rivet has been injured for several years and only plays physical occasionally.

Bouillon is a #7 defenseman. He's a good skater, hits well along the boards, but runs around in his own end, can't move anyone in front of the net and has little offense. Too small.

Hainsey is not ready and may never be ready. He shouldn't just be handed a spot this year imo. In fact, it could hamper Komisarek's development. I would sit his butt in the pressbox until he's ready to work and/or improves his quickness and play in his own end and his head above all.

Souray is always getting hurt and has a lot to prove this year.

Markov had personal problems last year and is probably the only guy we can rely on at this point.

I've seen Beauchemin several times and he just doesn't look like an NHLer to me. Archer is a couple years away, O'Byrne and Korpikari are 2-3 or even 4-5 years away.

That is NOT a solid defense.
Yeah but if we would have signed Matvichuk, Bouillon would become our 8th d-man, and we would lose Ron Hainsey a d-man who could do better than Matvichuk in the nhl. I think it's just the time to give Hainsey a real chance of cracking the lineup.
And Bouillon as 6th or 7th d-man is alright as long as he don't think that he is a goalie and try to stop the pucks (this lead to goals)

EaGLE1 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 10:06 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.