arpem-can Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Standings 1) Boston 2) Washington 3) Philadelphia 4) Pittsburgh 5) Carolina 6) New Jersey 7) Rangers 8) Habs 9) Toronto 10)Ottawa Dark horse...Florida Peter Laviolette (sp) listed Montreal with 4 others league -wide as teams to watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arpem-can Posted October 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Standings 1) Boston 2) Washington 3) Philadelphia 4) Pittsburgh 5) Carolina 6) New Jersey 7) Rangers 8) Habs 9) Toronto 10)Ottawa Dark horse...Florida Peter Laviolette (sp) listed Montreal with 4 others league -wide as teams to watch Typo error..Thats Montreal with a capital "M" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinot-1 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I am surprised at two things,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that our Habs are SOOOOOOO LOW,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and that the Laffers are sooooo high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Maggie the monkey has more credibility over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Seems realistic. Not exactly what I'd pick, but probably not far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habby67 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Considering the number of changes during the offseason it is really difficult to gauge where a team like Montreal will place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicalhab Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Considering the number of changes during the offseason it is really difficult to gauge where a team like Montreal will place... Exactly, so they just kinda threw the habs in the middle for the heck of it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bourne Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I would rank Ottawa higher myself as I think they could be a playoff team this season however I might agree with their thoughts (Recorded it and watching now) Nevertheless Montreal at 8th and Toronto at 9th sounds just about right. Why is anyone surprised the Habs are ranked low? This analysis is strictly done by what the rosters are like on paper and on paper we haven't much to show. Gomez has an abysmal season in New York, Cammy while certainly talented has yet to prove if his talent is that of his own or that of Jarome Iginla. You then have Andrei Kostitsyn who frankly has to either break thirty goals this season or is a borderline bust as a first rounder. The defense outside of Markov is good but has some holes in it and the jury is out on whether or not Price will rebound. Can the Habs do better? Certainly however the entire team has to prove it and any analyst who has only the rosters and the previous season to gauge as a reference isn't going to place the Habs as a top tier team. Personally I believe the top three spots are a wash for Philidelphia, Washington and Boston; Pittsburgh will fill fourth and the rest is up for grabs. A good Habs team could shoot for fifth, a poor Habs team could struggle to barely make eighth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbarker78 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 The habs better be atleast 8th.Infact 8th isn't good enough.I think they have to much speed upfront and a much bigger D then last season plus Price will be consistantly solid making the habs 5th or 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koreysecord1992 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'd say pretty close...tough to judge given to big changes. But I think I guessed something like 6-8 a while back. If the chips fall in the right place and the team has an injury-free (relatively) season and gels quickly under Martin it could be higher, but if key players go down and the team tanks it'll be lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColRouleBleu Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 RDS experts have different opinions on where the Habs will finish. They range from 3rd to 9th, most of them placing Montreal in 7th or 8th. The only thing that I agree with is when most experts say that positions 5 to 12 will be very tight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewraras Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 RDS experts have different opinions on where the Habs will finish. They range from 3rd to 9th, most of them placing Montreal in 7th or 8th. I caught the TSN preview last night - I'd agree a little more with the RDS guys, I'm figuring the Habs for the 7th-place finish. But hey, that still puts us in the playoffs, and that's when the "real" season begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourtrax Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Seems realistic. Not exactly what I'd pick, but probably not far off. Yep. In a perfect world, we finish 6th, but we aren't going to play in a perfect world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rygar Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 The TSN folks also said that no team who has undergone changes at a scale like we have has done well the first year out. Let's wait and see. If we beat the Leafs and Bruins I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manatee-X Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 The TSN folks also said that no team who has undergone changes at a scale like we have has done well the first year out. Let's wait and see. If we beat the Leafs and Bruins I'll be happy. I heard them say that too, but I can think of at least one example: Philly. They were waaaaay down in last place the year after the lock-out, made a whole bunch of off-season free-agent changes (although they had the advantage of also bringing up some talented rookies) and ended up in the middle of the playoff pack the next year. Obviously if you're looking at what the Leafs and especially the Rangers were famous for doing it doesn't look good for Montreal, but the guys we brought in aren't exactly 'star' players like the Rangers tried (with their egos to go along with it), nor are they over-the-hill veterens like Toronto always went with. These guys all seem to be team players, not to mention under-30 (the forwards, anyway). Tampa's another example I guess, but I think everyone could tell that some of those contracts were crazy the day they were signed (Malone anyone?) and they had too much tied up in their main guys to get much support (and had absolutely no D whatsoever). Anyway, I'm not saying the Habs will be rushing up the standings and 8th might be an accurate prediction but I think it's dumb how everyone's saying that getting so many free agents won't work just because it didn't work for other teams. Those teams were in different situations and went about things in a completely different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtl_-lt-3emHabs Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Obviously if you're looking at what the Leafs and especially the Rangers were famous for doing it doesn't look good for Montreal, but the guys we brought in aren't exactly 'star' players like the Rangers tried (with their egos to go along with it), nor are they over-the-hill veterens like Toronto always went with. These guys all seem to be team players, not to mention under-30 (the forwards, anyway). Tampa's another example I guess, but I think everyone could tell that some of those contracts were crazy the day they were signed (Malone anyone?) and they had too much tied up in their main guys to get much support (and had absolutely no D whatsoever). I couldn't agree with you more What TOR and NYR did was different then what the Habs have done. Will it mean success? Who know but I sure hope it does. Rate now I feel Montreal could finish as high as 3rd and as low as 9th or 10th because there really no history of all these players playing together. The key will be Price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmerpuck Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but I think this team is certainly capable of hanging around 4th and 5th. With everything that happened last year the team was in second well into January. On paper I think we are improved and the youngsters have another year of experience under their belts. Like I said, it's wishful thinking. Can we try this question again after the road trip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracie12 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Why is anyone surprised the Habs are ranked low? This analysis is strictly done by what the rosters are like on paper and on paper we haven't much to show. Fair enough, and I agree. Im still holding out hope that we will finish top 4 in the conference & enter the post season with home-ice advantage - but even me, the quintessential optimist, will acknowledge that a lot of the question marks surrounding this team must pan out if this is to happen. 7th or 8th is much more realistic, but I am still shooting for the stars. Cammy while certainly talented has yet to prove if his talent is that of his own or that of Jarome Iginla. Ive heard this several times but I dont quite get it. In his four full NHL seasons: Last year (iginla): 82gp - 39g, 43a 82pts 07-08 LA (no iginla) 63gp - 19g 28a 47pts (pro-rates out to 62pts over a full season) and remember that this was right after his arbitration hearing where LA said some VERY harsh things about him - he wanted OUT of LA. 06-07 LA (no iginla) 81gp - 34g 46a 80pts 05-06 LA (no iginla) 80gp 26g 29a 55 pts (first full nhl season) Cammy has shown he can score with different linemates, different systems, coaches etc. Initially in LA i remember people saying that it was Frolov that was helping Cammy - well, they split up & Frolov's numbers went down. Oh, and I think Boston is going to plummet. Still (obviously) a playoff team, but i have a feeling their goaltending will be shaky this year & they will finish 4-6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambroz Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think the Northeast is gonna be very close this year, which will have good and bad effects; 1. close race for 1st, 2. lots of competition creates loses keeping all of them lower in the standings. 1st - Montreal (charging up standings once figuring out chemistry after all-star/olympic break) 2nd - Boston 3rd - Sabres 4th - Ottawa Last - Leafs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy_133 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Well I don't think were going to be better than Boston. That's definitely the team to beat but with that being said anywhere from 4-12 wouldn't shock me. People trying to accurately measure this team are kidding themselves, the overturn of players, the complete new coaching staff and system it's just impossible to judge and we won't really have any idea what we have here till about game 15-20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I heard them say that too, but I can think of at least one example: Philly. They were waaaaay down in last place the year after the lock-out, made a whole bunch of off-season free-agent changes (although they had the advantage of also bringing up some talented rookies) and ended up in the middle of the playoff pack the next year. Obviously if you're looking at what the Leafs and especially the Rangers were famous for doing it doesn't look good for Montreal, but the guys we brought in aren't exactly 'star' players like the Rangers tried (with their egos to go along with it), nor are they over-the-hill veterens like Toronto always went with. These guys all seem to be team players, not to mention under-30 (the forwards, anyway). Tampa's another example I guess, but I think everyone could tell that some of those contracts were crazy the day they were signed (Malone anyone?) and they had too much tied up in their main guys to get much support (and had absolutely no D whatsoever). Anyway, I'm not saying the Habs will be rushing up the standings and 8th might be an accurate prediction but I think it's dumb how everyone's saying that getting so many free agents won't work just because it didn't work for other teams. Those teams were in different situations and went about things in a completely different way. I don't think Philli had the level of shakeup that we did though. I know they brought in Timonen, Hartnell, and Brierre, not sure if there was anyone else. And a big part of why they got better was their young players really stepping up into top players. Do we have anyone who can do that here? We'll see. The point Mackenzie was making is history isn't on our side here. The situation isn't the exact same of course; however, in general I think it's fair to say that building a team through free agency generally doesn't work. Mackenzie said himself he could be wrong and we'll need to see, but I agree based on the past it doesn't look that good. Building through free agency even pre-cap was problematic, but now we're in a situation where we're overpaying a lot of players (that "million here, million there" I've complained about in the past). At least now we're overpaying for our top players, which is preferable to overpaying Dandoullion. Howeve, it means you aren't using your cap money efficiently and usually comes back to haunt you in other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreekHockeyCoach Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Well I don't think were going to be better than Boston. That's definitely the team to beat but with that being said anywhere from 4-12 wouldn't shock me. People trying to accurately measure this team are kidding themselves, the overturn of players, the complete new coaching staff and system it's just impossible to judge and we won't really have any idea what we have here till about game 15-20. I agree. The so called experts are no different than the knowledgeable fans here. They make predictions based on what they see on paper but there are so many variables that come into play during the season that no one can foresee. Like you say Roy, in 15-20 games we should get a better idea of where we might finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manatee-X Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 I don't think Philli had the level of shakeup that we did though. I know they brought in Timonen, Hartnell, and Brierre, not sure if there was anyone else. And a big part of why they got better was their young players really stepping up into top players. Do we have anyone who can do that here? We'll see. The point Mackenzie was making is history isn't on our side here. The situation isn't the exact same of course; however, in general I think it's fair to say that building a team through free agency generally doesn't work. Mackenzie said himself he could be wrong and we'll need to see, but I agree based on the past it doesn't look that good. Building through free agency even pre-cap was problematic, but now we're in a situation where we're overpaying a lot of players (that "million here, million there" I've complained about in the past). At least now we're overpaying for our top players, which is preferable to overpaying Dandoullion. Howeve, it means you aren't using your cap money efficiently and usually comes back to haunt you in other areas. Ini addition to the three you mentioned they also brought in guys like Vaclav Prospal, Jason Smith and Rory Fitzpatrick . Leaving that offseason were the likes of Forsberg, Esche, Fedoruk, Nedved, Pitkanen, Zhitnik. Now obviously these guys didn't mean quite the same to Philly as what Koivu and Kovalev meant to us, but there are some pretty big names on there that formed a big part of their team the year before. To be clear, I actually agree with you that the extra million here and there could really come back to hurt us in the next few seasons (when any of Price/Andrei/Pleky/Lats want a raise, for instance). For now, though, I think we've managed to build a pretty solid D corps and supporting cast despite the big salaries up front (which Tampa couldn't to), our team seems like they're not short on team spirit and should be able to play together as a unit (unlike the Rangers) and the new additions are at least for the moment in their prime (unlike Toronto). I'm just saying that nobody has ever really built a team through free agency in the way we did. I'm not making a case with the Flyers that history shows we'll be improved, but I also don't think you can look at any other team and say history shows building through free agency won't work. This team is a different animal, and to be honest I have absolutely no idea how we'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmash Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Ini addition to the three you mentioned they also brought in guys like Vaclav Prospal, Jason Smith and Rory Fitzpatrick . Leaving that offseason were the likes of Forsberg, Esche, Fedoruk, Nedved, Pitkanen, Zhitnik. You're right I missed Smith. Fitzpatrick spent half the season in the minors and only played 19 games for Philli, so I'm not really sure he can be counted as an addiiton any more than Sanford can for us. Prospal was not a UFA signing and didn't come over until close to (or at) the trade deadline. That said, of the four players: Hartnall only had 43 points and Smith was starting to show his age. Brierre had a decent 72 points, and no doubt Timonen was a key signing. However, it wasn't primarily the UFA players who made the team better: their were a couple key signings of course, but I'm not against free agency in general. It was their own talent stepping up largely that made them good. I think the big difference is we are counting on the signings to really be the bulk of our offense, and that won't work. If we have someone who can step up the way Mike Richards did in Philli, we may be alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
risteenhuis Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 8th place. Experts. Didn't the same experts two seasons ago have our team finishing out of the playoffs???? With so many new players it is difficult to know. However a better D (Spacek, Mara, Gill), better PP (Spacek, Cammi), younger team among the top two lines, and more experienced goalies. My guess is 2nd place in division which should result in 4th or 5th in the East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.