The Kovalenko Trade: THANK YOU!
Doug Bowles
Wow, what a player. I can't believe that Sather was shrewd enough to scoop this
guy for Scott Thornton. No knock against Thorny - he is a role player and
(sometimes) knows what he has to do on the ice. But Kovalenko - man, what a
gritty player. He goes to the net with absolutely no fear, goes into the
corners, and works *really* hard game in and game out. I can't thank the
Canadiens' management enough for sending this guy to us for virtually nothing -
the Oilers are so deep that Thornton would likely have sat in the press box for
40 games this year.
Regards,
Doug
Dave St.Onge
In article <55dil4$18...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
Geez, it sounds like Kovanlenko is suffering from schizophrenia or
something. If he would have played like that in Montreal, he probably
would still be here. We really don't need him with the offense that
we have, and I am impressed with Thornton's play so far this season...
gon...@aei.ca
do...@amc.ab.ca (Doug Bowles) wrote:
>Wow, what a player. I can't believe that Sather was shrewd enough to scoop this
>guy for Scott Thornton. No knock against Thorny - he is a role player and
>(sometimes) knows what he has to do on the ice. But Kovalenko - man, what a
>gritty player. He goes to the net with absolutely no fear, goes into the
>corners, and works *really* hard game in and game out. I can't thank the
>Canadiens' management enough for sending this guy to us for virtually nothing -
>the Oilers are so deep that Thornton would likely have sat in the press box for
>40 games this year.
>Regards,
>Doug
Just wait till he get tired of playing in Edmonton, you'll see why
Houle was happy with Thornton.
JF
Stefan Gieselmann
In article <55dil4$18...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
Doug Bowles <do...@amc.ab.ca> wrote:
>Wow, what a player. I can't believe that Sather was shrewd enough to scoop this
>guy for Scott Thornton. No knock against Thorny - he is a role player and
>(sometimes) knows what he has to do on the ice. But Kovalenko - man, what a
>gritty player. He goes to the net with absolutely no fear, goes into the
>corners, and works *really* hard game in and game out. I can't thank the
>Canadiens' management enough for sending this guy to us for virtually nothing -
>the Oilers are so deep that Thornton would likely have sat in the press box for
>40 games this year.
>
>Regards,
>Doug
That's pretty funny, we're all thinking about the reverse, THANK YOU Mr.
Sather for relieving us of one of our more
invisible-talented-playoff-washouts for this wonderful hard-working
reasonably skilled player!
Seriously, another trade where *both* teams get what they want. Oilers
needed more skill-players, Habs needed more grit. Good trade both ways.
For the record, Turgeon deal could well be summarized in the same way, we
give up more talent, but get more of what we actually need. Odie/Richer
was a steal.
Odd, seems our GM is doing a very commendable job.
Stefan Gieselmann
Toronto
Paul Tanasi
Stefan Gieselmann (sgie...@interlog.com) writes:
> For the record, Turgeon deal could well be summarized in the same way, we
> give up more talent, but get more of what we actually need. Odie/Richer
> was a steal.
Fat chance!
I thought so too originally, but the more I watch the more I see what
Jersey fans meant when they said he was washed up. The speed's gone, the
shot's gone and he doesn't hit at all. He got his goals with Turgeon but
that's over and so are his chances at 20 goals if he stays on the 3rd
line, and he doesn't deserve to unseat Bure or Recchi so....
Anyways take this team as it is today, minus one floating Richer and add
one solid defensive Lyle Odelein and can you honestly say Montreal would
not be a better team?? I didn't think so. Houle screwed up, he should have
given Lyle his money and should have dealt Brisebois to whoever and for
whatever instead.
Malakhov-Odelein
Baron-Wilkie
Popovic-Quintal
Doesn't that look better?
--
Paul Tanasi 11-21-10 24-19 33 pth...@intranet.ca
Gerry Warner
Paul Tanasi (bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> Fat chance!
> I thought so too originally, but the more I watch the more I see what
> Jersey fans meant when they said he was washed up. The speed's gone,
It doesn't look gone to me...
> the shot's gone
Only because he doesn't use it. Somebody needs to get on his case to
fire the puck more often, that's all.
> and he doesn't hit at all.
Don't tell that to Bruce Gardiner. But we didn't get him to knock
people around anyway.
> He got his goals with Turgeon but
> that's over and so are his chances at 20 goals if he stays on the 3rd
> line, and he doesn't deserve to unseat Bure or Recchi so....
> Anyways take this team as it is today, minus one floating Richer and add
> one solid defensive Lyle Odelein and can you honestly say Montreal would
> not be a better team??
What precisely is 'one solid defensive Lyle Odelein'? Is that like
'one solid defensive Phil Housley' minus the offense? Since there's
no such thing, who cares? We might just as well imagine that we got
one 'power forward Stephane Richer'. Odelein wouldn't help the current
team at all, he'd just bump David Wilkie from the lineup. And rather
than at least having something to look forward to on defense, we'd be
bad without even the current glimmer of hope for the future.
> I didn't think so. Houle screwed up, he should have
> given Lyle his money and should have dealt Brisebois to whoever and for
> whatever instead.
> Malakhov-Odelein
> Baron-Wilkie
> Popovic-Quintal
> Doesn't that look better?
It doesn't look any different to me. Except, then we'd be minus 6 or 7
goals up front, and some of those 6-5 wins become 5-5 ties, or 6-6 ties
become 6-5 losses. Well, okay, on the bright side we'd be rated higher
for the draft lottery in the summer. But that's about it.
****************/CCCCCCCCCCC|*****************************************
Gerry Warner |C|~~|H__H|~~~ 17 11 42 Player Of The Day:
AE, CU |C|__|H~~H|___ 34 52 Darcy Tucker
****************\CCCCCCCCCCC|******* 41 ******************************
Paul Tanasi
Gerry Warner (gwa...@chat.carleton.ca) writes:
> It doesn't look gone to me...
Well it sure looks like that second effort he used to have is gone, and
I've yet to see him fly down that wing pull a move or two and get in the
goalie's face like he used to. Of course nobody expected him to be like
he used to but maybe we were still expecting a little more.
> What precisely is 'one solid defensive Lyle Odelein'? Is that like
> 'one solid defensive Phil Housley' minus the offense? Since there's
> no such thing, who cares? We might just as well imagine that we got
> one 'power forward Stephane Richer'. Odelein wouldn't help the current
> team at all, he'd just bump David Wilkie from the lineup. And rather
> than at least having something to look forward to on defense, we'd be
> bad without even the current glimmer of hope for the future.
Ahh, but you clipped off the part that said "trade Brisebois instead"
that's how Wilkie would still be in the top 6.
> It doesn't look any different to me. Except, then we'd be minus 6 or 7
> goals up front, and some of those 6-5 wins become 5-5 ties, or 6-6 ties
> become 6-5 losses. Well, okay, on the bright side we'd be rated higher
> for the draft lottery in the summer. But that's about it.
>
I dunno Gerry I'd take the minus 6-7 goals up front if it meant minus
15-20 goals against.
Gerry Warner
Paul Tanasi (bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> Ahh, but you clipped off the part that said "trade Brisebois instead"
> that's how Wilkie would still be in the top 6.
However, the problem is that Odelein is not significantly better
defensively than Brisebois is.
> > It doesn't look any different to me. Except, then we'd be minus 6 or 7
> > goals up front, and some of those 6-5 wins become 5-5 ties, or 6-6 ties
> > become 6-5 losses. Well, okay, on the bright side we'd be rated higher
> > for the draft lottery in the summer. But that's about it.
> >
> I dunno Gerry I'd take the minus 6-7 goals up front if it meant minus
> 15-20 goals against.
Huge "if" there. Since it wouldn't mean *any* difference in goals
against, we're better off with those 6-7 goals up front. And actually,
it'd be more like 10-12 goals up front, since you're also taking
out Brisebois. So, no Breezy and no Richer = 10 fewer goals scored for
the Habs, no fewer goals against...which equals about two wins for the
team so far this year.