Comments on: Sympathy for Non-Playoff'ers

By: simplyhabby

simplyhabby — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:41:54 +0000

Stats don't lie, however, Koivu is the only player on this team that I have seen carry on his back for a few wins this year.

In know way am i excluding Koivu from fault this year, is a team game and blame, however, I an reinforcing his abilities as a leader and team player.

In my comments under the "Question's of plenty" I noted the teams horrible +/- rating, specially the first line but when the game is on the line for the habs, would you prefer plex to be at center, or Koivu?

Don't get me wrong, I think plex is an excellent two way player and her is light years ahead of what Ribs brought to the team but Koivu is still the man in my books.

To enforce your view, I don't thing Koivu should be a first line center, I think he is more suited to the wing on the first line or a second line center, however, he is the best center we got!

By: habsoverserver

habsoverserver — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:21:17 +0000

like bonk before him, samsonov was expected to produce to a first line level of offence, while being given far less ice time and no special teams play.

when the organization makes peripheral players the centerpieces of their offseason strategy and pays them big bucks for their tangenial roles, they leave themselves open to be attacked by the media.

By: Tachmo

Tachmo — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:47:25 +0000

Those are interesting stats. I personally think Samsonov has gotten the shaft. He should end up in Boston where he belongs.

It was pretty hard for him to produce like they wanted him to with no PP time. It is hard for anyone to produce with no PP time. Judging by your statements, Koivu would have been ridden out of town more then Samsonov if he didn't see the PP.

In my mind it is all about getting the opportunity. Perhaps Samsonov didn't deserve it.

By: habsoverserver

habsoverserver — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:10:25 +0000

i agree with most of what you wrote, but i think that a thorough scouting report of samsonov would have indicated that to thrive he needed more ice time and powerplay time than montreal wanted to give him. that type of scouting is very easy to provide. despite that, i still thought that samsonov was an ok move.

in retrospect it is clear that gainey needs to clear cap space and have room to trade for the right guy when he shows up, as opposed to always forcing something iffy like samsonov.

By: habsoverserver

habsoverserver — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:05:13 +0000

koivu had a career year, because of Souray on the powerplay. take away koivu's 43 powerplay points and he had 11 goals and 21 assists and was minus 21 at full strength.

mike johnson had 10 goals and 18 assists when not on the powerplay and was plus six. samsonov had 9 goals and 13 assists at full strength and was minus four. plekanec makes koivu look even worse - he had 15 full strength goals, 18 assists and was +10.

if the team had played johnson or pleks at first line center, for at least part of the season, when koivu was struggling, montreal might have made the playoffs.

if the team's highest paid player, captain and leader can't outscore a rookie or a third liner obtained for nothing, then he needs to stand up and hold himself accountable, as does management for not intervening.

By: mikster

mikster — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:26:34 +0000

Actually, the defense got the Rangers in the playoffs. The last week or so they went stronger on the offense, but with the injuries before…….it was allllllllll defense!

By: Habroller

Habroller — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:31:06 +0000

I really think that even without Souray the Habs have a better active depth on D than the Rangers (without Marc Staal of course). The only reason you made the playoffs is because you're stacked up front and your goalie stepped up when he needed to (instead of getting injured – Huet – or just becoming mediocre – Aebischer). Likes of Roszival, Rachunek, Mara, Pock, Malik & Tyutin (though I like this one) wouldn't make the Habs top 3 IMO!

By: hockeyhead

hockeyhead — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:02:43 +0000

nice post. idiot jacobs thinks that over spending for yesterdays heros will make amends with bruins fans.

we need a star goalie. another top dman to compliment Z another sniper...and most of all a guy with character that will put fear into the oppostion...neely and oriely are missed for sure.

we also need a coach like pat burns or mike keenan again.

should of got pat quinn.

By: Tachmo

Tachmo — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:30:07 +0000

You are probably right about Sutton. I think what Boston needs is defensive defenceman. Sutton maybe be a good signing for 2 million/per and play with Alberts or Ference on the 3rd pairing.

Hannan needs to be signed!!

Boston should trade any young player with Murray if they didn't want a 2nd rounder then throw in Kobasew, Krecji, Kalus, Karsums, ***** anybody. Just get a #1 goalie in Bean Town and we'll see what happens. It may hurt to give a youngster, but if it means shredding Murray's contract and getting a goalie in return it is genius.

By: mikster

mikster — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:14:35 +0000

Sutton is nothing more than a #5 d-man and only good if paired with another good d-man. The most i'd sign him for would be $1.8M a season.

Hannan in Boston? That's more like it. He'd be an excellent fit there.

Murray for Nabby could be a possibility, and in a way i think it may be worth doing so. Yet, the Sharks would also want something of value for the future. In this case, a young player included in the package.