bruins4777 Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 There should be more obstruction called in the NHL but there are many players who obstruct way more than Madden and the evidence of that can be found in his PIM totals. A player having good position and being a pest is not being obsturctive though. Obstruction would he a guy reaching out with his stick or free hand to hook or hold a guy and Madden just doesn't have to do that as much as it would seem you guys believe because of his quickness and positioning. He knows where to go and he is quick enough to get there so he is in front of the player and gaining position so he doesn't have to hold the guy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He IS in good position, there is no doubting that. He is one of those guys who seems to have a "sense" of being able to position himself defensively. Its one of the things i respect about madden. But a lot of times when he plays against big guys like thornton he'll just drape his entire body over him and drag him down, i consider that obstruction. As for players who obstruct more than madden? Of course hal gill and marek malik are two guys who i watch a lot and who base their freaking games around it, but madden is no saint himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Anyone who thinks that another Lindros type of deal is remotely possible in today's NHL isn't paying attention to the economics of the game. Monster deals like this are history. The most Crosby will get would be a second line player and a future draft pick at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 (edited) Anyone who thinks that another Lindros type of deal is remotely possible in today's NHL isn't paying attention to the economics of the game. Edited March 2, 2005 by Jas0nMacIsaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 jason... what's up with using "little" and "nonsense" and such in your posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 "Montreal offered Theodore, Hainsey (1st rounder) and a 1st for Kovalchuk and Atlanta declined so I guess your little theory on that is thrown out the window. Last I checked Crosby is a much much more hyped and recognized prospect then Kovalchuk but I guess the nonsense continues." First off this isn't a blockbuster offer. Second off it has hints of revisionist history to it. At the time of this proposed deal Jeff Hackett was the number 1 goalie in Montreal and Theodore was considered a bust. He was drafted in 94 and never made it out of the shadows...which is why they acquired Hackett. Hackett was injury plagued in 2000 which forced Montreal to play Theodore who ended up close to 30 loses for the Habs and offered as trade bait for a scorer. After teams turned Theodore offers down did he have his career year---after the 2001 Kovalchuk draft. So in essence Montreal offered a second line player and two prospects for Kovalchuk. Teams will offer even less in 2005 for such players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I am going to disagree Manta. A franchise player will get a lot back in return. What would be a fair package for Crosby? Probably two proven players and a first round pick. Crosby is supposed to be that good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 (edited) What are you talking about. Jose Theodore was hardly considered a bust going into the 00 draft. In 30 games he had a 2.10 GAA with a .919 SV% for a 23 year old. The following season he backed it up as a starter with a respectable 2.56 GAA and a .909 SV%. So it was a young top prospect like Fleury or Miller. Hainey was a a highly recognized top prospect for Montreal and a 1st was a decent first round pick. It would be much like the following: Lehtonen, Valabik and a 1st Even then Crosby is a much better prospect then Kovalchuk was and would demand a steeper price. Edited March 2, 2005 by Jas0nMacIsaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Sorry to disagree Jason. If Hacket wasn't so injury prone Theodore is a bench warmer. Montreal gave up on Theodore and wanted to cut their losses at the time and no one wanted Theodore, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Regardless of how much precieved talent Crosby he will not get more than a older second line player and maybe a prospect or a pick. Unless, the NHL adopts a rookie salary cap he might be too expensive for alot of teams....for an unproven player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I believe there will be a rookie cap imposed Manta. So, that would make Crosby more attractive. Of course, any deal made would have to consider what the new budget would be. Can a team take on contracts if they're under, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 Sorry to disagree Jason. If Hacket wasn't so injury prone Theodore is a bench warmer. Montreal gave up on Theodore and wanted to cut their losses at the time and no one wanted Theodore, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise.Regardless of how much precieved talent Crosby he will not get more than a older second line player and maybe a prospect or a pick. Unless, the NHL adopts a rookie salary cap he might be too expensive for alot of teams....for an unproven player. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your wrong on so many levels. I'm not een going to try and argue with you on this one. Every GM would laugh in your face if you told them that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruins4777 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Sorry to disagree Jason. If Hacket wasn't so injury prone Theodore is a bench warmer. Montreal gave up on Theodore and wanted to cut their losses at the time and no one wanted Theodore, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise.Regardless of how much precieved talent Crosby he will not get more than a older second line player and maybe a prospect or a pick. Unless, the NHL adopts a rookie salary cap he might be too expensive for alot of teams....for an unproven player. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your wrong on so many levels. I'm not een going to try and argue with you on this one. Every GM would laugh in your face if you told them that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because you know all the GM's in the league and you know how they operate right????? I agree with you on some levels that theo wasn't a bust at the time, hainsey was ultra hyped, and such forth, but you seriously does he have to agree with you? That was 3 years ago also... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 Sorry to disagree Jason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 (edited) The Habs were not actively shopping Theodore back then. The only reason they were considering such a blockbuster move was because Savard was so hot for Kovalchuk and they had two great young goaltenders (Theodore and Garon), meaning one was expendable. Garon was one of the top NHL goaltending prospects (highly ranked by THN Future watch, etc) and Theodore had already begun emerging as a star. In 2000 he had the tied for the lowest GAA in the league (but lost the Crozier Award on a tiebreaker). His Win/Loss record suffered because Montr Edited March 2, 2005 by Zero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Derek: If there is a rookie cap, then he would be attractive. Sorry again Jason, but your so offbase with economic realty in today's NHL. Tell me again who Pittsburgh traded for their franchise goalie and #1 overall pick last year? Answer: Pittsburgh, got the 18-year-old talent by trading third-line right-winger Mikael Samuelsson to Florida and swapped draft positions. Third line player and draft pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanity_gallops Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Manta, I agree with most of the basics of your argument, but I think using the Fleury example is a poor choice. Florida was willing to trade down because they already had their franchise goaltender in Luongo. Everyone knew Fleury to be the probable #1 overall pick, and it would be foolish for Florida to draft him and have him just wait in the wings behind Luongo. So, Florida acquired a young grinder and a great first round draft slot. For Crosby, I really doubt that little would swing a deal. No team has a franchise player with the potential of Crosby (at least not with all the hype surrounding him), and there will be a bidding war to try and acquire that #1 overall pick. More than likely, I think it would revolve around young top prospects and a LOT of future draft picks, but it would still be a potential blockbuster - just of the new kind: draft picks and prospects. Trade potential for potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 Derek: If there is a rookie cap, then he would be attractive.Sorry again Jason, but your so offbase with economic realty in today's NHL. Tell me again who Pittsburgh traded for their franchise goalie and #1 overall pick last year? Answer: Pittsburgh, got the 18-year-old talent by trading third-line right-winger Mikael Samuelsson to Florida and swapped draft positions. Third line player and draft pick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 2003 wasn't a top heavy draft. Their wasn't a clear cut number 1 pick like in years past. 2003 has amazing depth so teams could trade down and still get the player they wanted. The 1st overall pick had little value that year because there was probably 5 number 1 picks. I guess you would know that though. It is funny you are trying to even debate this, prospects aren't quite your cup of tea where they are obviously my strongest point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruins4777 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Derek: If there is a rookie cap, then he would be attractive.Sorry again Jason, but your so offbase with economic realty in today's NHL. Tell me again who Pittsburgh traded for their franchise goalie and #1 overall pick last year? Answer: Pittsburgh, got the 18-year-old talent by trading third-line right-winger Mikael Samuelsson to Florida and swapped draft positions. Third line player and draft pick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 2003 wasn't a top heavy draft. Their wasn't a clear cut number 1 pick like in years past. 2003 has amazing depth so teams could trade down and still get the player they wanted. The 1st overall pick had little value that year because there was probably 5 number 1 picks. I guess you would know that though. It is funny you are trying to even debate this, prospects aren't quite your cup of tea where they are obviously my strongest point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jason, prospects are one of your strongest points, probaly 2nd strongest, but your strongest is being an ass whenever possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Many assumptions on your behalf. My only point was that the days of blockbuster trades, particularly for prospects are long gone in today's NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Jason, you do have a broad knowledge of prospects. But take some friendly advice: "Respect your elders." Your opinion will be more respected by others than it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 The Habs were not actively shopping Theodore back then. The only reason they were considering such a blockbuster move was because Savard was so hot for Kovalchuk and they had two great young goaltenders (Theodore and Garon), meaning one was expendable. Garon was one of the top NHL goaltending prospects (highly ranked by THN Future watch, etc) and Theodore had already begun emerging as a star. In 2000 he had the tied for the lowest GAA in the league (but lost the Crozier Award on a tiebreaker). His Win/Loss record suffered because Montr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 3, 2005 Author Share Posted March 3, 2005 Derek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 3, 2005 Author Share Posted March 3, 2005 Jason, you do have a broad knowledge of prospects. But take some friendly advice: "Respect your elders."Your opinion will be more respected by others than it is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I tried the respect thing and it just doesn't seem to work. People stamp on you and laugh in the process. Aggresivness seesm to work best, I have friends outside hockey, I am here to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 3, 2005 Author Share Posted March 3, 2005 Many assumptions on your behalf.My only point was that the days of blockbuster trades, particularly for prospects are long gone in today's NHL. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and I pointed out that Montreal offered a huge package for Kovalchuk and even that didn't get the job done. That knocks off your point. Some team like Florida will offer Weiss, Huselius, Krajicek and a 1st type pakcage for Crosby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 3, 2005 Author Share Posted March 3, 2005 The Habs were not actively shopping Theodore back then. The only reason they were considering such a blockbuster move was because Savard was so hot for Kovalchuk and they had two great young goaltenders (Theodore and Garon), meaning one was expendable. Garon was one of the top NHL goaltending prospects (highly ranked by THN Future watch, etc) and Theodore had already begun emerging as a star. In 2000 he had the tied for the lowest GAA in the league (but lost the Crozier Award on a tiebreaker). His Win/Loss record suffered because Montr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruins4777 Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 There are plenty of posters here and on other boards who know plenty and aren't arrogant about it. Want an example? Derek. Or how bout the guy you just complemented zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.