optimus2861
Registered User
Seriously. How anyone can not understand or just hand-wave away the problem with having Bouillon on the roster is beyond me.
Is Bouillon coming back? (Officially invited to training camp)
- Thread starter De Montreal
- Start date
sheed36
Registered User
Probably because the coach thinks Bouillon is still somewhat good and he'll find a way to have him in the line up. Add to that MT will likely at some point in the season have him paired with Subban for a few games and on the PP where he's useless. There must be better options out there for a depth dman and if MT wasn't the coach Bouillon probably wouldn't be back.
Bergevillain
Registered User
I can agree with Bou as a depth signing, the problem is, as shown last season, he is played as a ****ing top line D-Man half the time. Usless PP time and playing with the #1 Norris winning defenseman.
The same reason that if your friend is an alcoholic, you yell at him if you see him reach for the bottle of Scotch.
Technically nothing bad has happened yet, but prior history tells you what's probably going to happen if things run their course.
Sterling Archer
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2006
- 23,019
- 13,498
We can only hope it's a 2 way contract and Beau and Tinner make sure he never sees an NHL locker rom again.
Frozenice
No Reverse Gear
- Jan 1, 2010
- 7,024
- 526
Are all your friends alcoholics because nobody likes to drink with a Bogart.
Make peace with the Cube, it will only be for a year or two.
lo striver
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,649
- 45,823
There's no reason to sign him. At all.
We have good young players on the roster ready to go. Signing Bouillion is a signal that mgmt is ready to let them develop in the NHL (which they should be doing.) And quite frankly, our coach has already demonstrated his willingness to play favourites with inferior players.
I really hope this isn't true because it would be a terrible move for us. He's not even a number 8 blueliner at this point. Just let him move on for Pete's sake. If we do sign him, he will get PP time. He will get time with Subban. He will take ice from players who are better and younger... just makes no sense to have this guy now.
It was supposed to only be for a year 2 summers ago.
To carry the analogy further, it was a good fun in 2013. But Therrrien demonstrated some destructive compulsive behaviour in how he managed his defensemen in 2014 so his friends should cut him off and call him a cab, rather than let him puke all over the lineup this fall and wake up with a wicked hangover during the mid-season push.
The point being, don't enable your coaches destructive compulsive behaviour.
DJ Breadman
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,649
- 45,823
I don't think he's proven enough actually. I think we should sign him to a bridge contract. Say three years?
Team_Spirit
95% Elliotte
- Jul 3, 2002
- 37,983
- 18,233
Frozenice
No Reverse Gear
- Jan 1, 2010
- 7,024
- 526
Last year I'd get a kick out of reading posts on the main board from Hab fans saying we should can the coach, get rid of MB and trade a bunch of players and other team's fans would be saying to us 'wtf, you guys are 3rd in the East'.
I'm not a fan of the Cube and I wouldn't bring him back but it's not the end of the world if we do.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 75,649
- 45,823
"End of the world?" No.
But we should aim a little higher than that don't you think? If the standard for us is "well its bad but its not that bad" then we've got a problem.
Anyways, I'll believe it when I see it. He's not signed right now and I see no reason why we'd sign him so hopefully he won't be.
Of course it's not, but how do you expect to get better if you sign guys like Bouillon? Diaz would actually be more useful and is still UFA too. Or a lot of the guys mentionned a couple posts earlier.
8th may account for like 1% of your overall team, but I prefer a A+ 8th D than a B 8th D, especially if we can get one for the same price as Bouillon.
Power Man
Grrrr
Fire Everyone
Especially you
- May 17, 2006
- 5,812
- 0
I wouldn't mind Bouillon as veteran help in Hamilton. He's probably good enough for a third pairing role in the AHL. However, he's not good enough to warm a NHL bench, let alone play in the NHL.
There's absolutely no need to re-sign him. We have enough d-man. If you want a veteran to be the 7th or 8th d-man that's fine. But not Bouillon when a guy like Brookbank is still out who can drop the gloves against some bigger opponents.
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
Well, if you do re-sign him anyway, then there's no excuse to give him anything but a $550k 2-way deal. No other team will sign him. No other team will play him. That probably would have been the case last season too. So he has zero leverage on the contract, and if you are going to fight tooth and nail with other players over (relatively) minor amounts of money, I would be annoyed and frustrated to see him get $1M or $1.5M like last year or something like that, just on the negotiation principle.
I don't even want him on the team as a #7/8, nor particularly in the minors as a #9/10, but even if I was going to accept the "you can never have too much depth on D" argument, then I still wouldn't see any justification for giving a contract to him that no other team in the league would give.
But I still don't honestly believe that Bergevin is foolish enough to sign him.
I don't even want him on the team as a #7/8, nor particularly in the minors as a #9/10, but even if I was going to accept the "you can never have too much depth on D" argument, then I still wouldn't see any justification for giving a contract to him that no other team in the league would give.
But I still don't honestly believe that Bergevin is foolish enough to sign him.
lets put the C on him as well. Last thing we need is this guy patrolling the blueline..
Fozz
Registered User
As long as he gets zero PP time, I'm down with this. Experienced depth on the blue line is never a bad thing. Injuries happen and will happen...
