Seems he's got the starters role back. I think he's started 5 of the last 6.
Ya, Hitch wants Halak to be the guy. Even when Elliot was getting the majority of starts the feeling was Halak is still the guy come playoff time.
As for Vezina votes, very unlikely. Elliot really has to stink it up and Halak needs to play a LOT more games. I know Thomas only played 55 last year but he broke the save % record. So ya, if Halak continues to rack up shutouts maybe lol.
I look at Lundqvist, Quick, Howard and a rising Rinne to get all the votes.
I still think we kept the right goalie, but im cheering for halak and the blues in the playoffs since we wont be in.
I had the Blues as my sleeper pick last year so I obviously liked them again this year. How can you not? They need help scoring goals though or they could be out early.
Anyone still think we didn't need to replace him or re-sign him? For all his penalties he was a rock. We would have made the playoffs if we had signed him over Gill.
You re kidding right? Tough to sense sarcasm on the computer. Theres no way you are serious. Great sense of humour you have. No, but really are you serious with this absolutely idiotic post
Resigning him would have been a terrible idea, he's over the hill and he's having a bad year with the Caps.
I DO agree he should have been replaced however...
And NO signing Wisniewski 15 years 10m each like Colombus did would not have been a good idea for a replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mover
What makes you say that he would be terrible here?
Habs fan sometimes...
He's not getting any younger. Sometimes the quality of 36+ yrs old drop considerably. If we resigned him he wouldn't have been more than an a very overpaid average no4.
He's been dreadful for Washington, he wouldn't have made a difference.
Washington has a much different system than us. Hamrlik excelled within our system, and could handle tough ES minutes that our rookies and Gill can't. Even if we hadn't signed him, we should have signed someone instead of Gill. We lost a top four guy and replaced him with a #7 PK specialist.
Anyone still think we didn't need to replace him or re-sign him? For all his penalties he was a rock. We would have made the playoffs if we had signed him over Gill.
Maybe the 2008-2009 version but not this year's version. I think it was the right time to move on.
If you look at the UFa market, most of those werre either junk or ended up overpaid...
Washington has a much different system than us. Hamrlik excelled within our system, and could handle tough ES minutes that our rookies and Gill can't. Even if we hadn't signed him, we should have signed someone instead of Gill. We lost a top four guy and replaced him with a #7 PK specialist.
I agree they should have replaced Hamrlik, but in no way should they have re-signed him. He was clearly declining every season.
They probably felt Markov and Gorges would have been enough.
Anyone still think we didn't need to replace him or re-sign him? For all his penalties he was a rock. We would have made the playoffs if we had signed him over Gill.
I agree they should have replaced Hamrlik, but in no way should they have re-signed him. He was clearly declining every season.
They probably felt Markov and Gorges would have been enough.
It was known before hand that Markov would not return until at least December. They couldn't have possibly have thought you can wait half a season for one guy and have a successful season. Hamrlik on a one year deal would have been ideal. He said the only reason he rejected the one thrown at him was because they threw it at him a few days before July 1st.
To be fair, had they brought back last year's exact defence plus Gorges, not even with Markov, and that group is better than this group. Hamrlik at 1 year was the correct offer. Walking away because he wanted two was the right decision. They replaced Hamrlik with Gorges. Problem is that created a hole by moving up Gorges. Spacek/Gill/Emelin/Diaz/Weber are/were not capable of filling the hole of Gorges. That was the mistake. Compounded with the loss of Markov.
lol seriously. With all the injuries AGAIN, it would've been the same old story of the last 2 years. Great in the first half, no juice to play in the second one. All these delay of game penalties, taking forever to get up after being on the ground, he was always dead tired. It sure would've helped Subban tho. The problem was that HAMMERGOD wanted 2 years, we only wanted him this year.
To be fair, had they brought back last year's exact defence plus Gorges, not even with Markov, and that group is better than this group. Hamrlik at 1 year was the correct offer. Walking away because he wanted two was the right decision. They replaced Hamrlik with Gorges. Problem is that created a hole by moving up Gorges. Spacek/Gill/Emelin/Diaz/Weber are/were not capable of filling the hole of Gorges. That was the mistake. Compounded with the loss of Markov.
He didn't ask for two! They didn't offer him a contract before the end of June so he walked. If they had offered him a contract June 1st for one year he would have signed.
He didn't ask for two! They didn't offer him a contract before the end of June so he walked. If they had offered him a contract June 1st for one year he would have signed.
It was known before hand that Markov would not return until at least December. They couldn't have possibly have thought you can wait half a season for one guy and have a successful season. Hamrlik on a one year deal would have been ideal. He said the only reason he rejected the one thrown at him was because they threw it at him a few days before July 1st.
Martin on Antichambre said they thought Markov would have been ready in mid october back in the summer and in TC.
)
