|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 23, 2003 20:03:25 GMT -5
We got a good two goal scorer for a very good goaltender with a two goals against average on a team with a very weak defense and lots of shots on goal..
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Jan 23, 2003 20:05:47 GMT -5
Hackett will come back to haunt us. The Bruins just got alot better, we got another 3rd/ 4th liner. I don't think I like this deal.
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Jan 23, 2003 20:06:03 GMT -5
this is the way i look at it boston offered up mclaren for hainsey and hackett. AS rejected the offer, sighting no chance he'd put hainsey in there. so boston looked elsewhere, san jose became interested in mclaren, but didnt want to spair either of their tenders. so they worked out a 3 way deal, because sj was willing to part with the young defensive stud, mtl wasnt. savard wanted to rid himself of hackett but to get good return so he didn't mind taking sundstrom, who is a good player, and has 300 career points in less than 600 games... so for a UFA to be, that's not a bad deal at all. throw in the 3rd rounder and i like it a lot. just if we somehow got rid of dackell in this whole mess. because with sundstrom in the line up i think he'll basically take dackells job as he's an improvement in every aspect.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:07:05 GMT -5
Jillson is just a cusp above Hainsey and Komi apparently
He really struggles defensively they say....but his offensive game is excellent...
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Jan 23, 2003 20:10:02 GMT -5
I am happy with what we got in return but to see Boston improve that much makes me see i look at how much boston improves as an inevitability so it doesn't bother me much sooner or later the right deal was gonna come along and the b's would unload their overated d-man. I sure as hell am glad McClaren is not here that would have sucked royally an injury prone d-man is not what we need we need one we can count on. sundstrum will be a fine fit on the 3rd line with bulis now playing the second this could mean cerk may end up with bulis and perreault or back up front with saku and if he ends up on the first hossa will be gone. tomorow is the first real practice for CJ and the team Saturday night's lineup will be very interesting. bottom line is we are better that's what counts and we didn't sacrifice anything of signifigance to get there.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 23, 2003 20:12:46 GMT -5
bottom line is we are better that's what counts and we didn't sacrifice anything of signifigance to get there. We're in no way better Viper. Sundstrom brings nothing we need. He's soft, doesn't show up every game, doesn't produce but plays somewhat good defensively. He was on the Sharks 3rd and 4th line. Sharks and Bruins are better. Not us.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 23, 2003 20:14:06 GMT -5
So, does Garon start against Washington or Chicago this weekend?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:14:51 GMT -5
So, does Garon start against Washington or Chicago this weekend? doubt it.......
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 23, 2003 20:18:04 GMT -5
I think he'll get a start. After all there's only 33 games left for him to play in the 12 required to prevent him from becoming UFA. I say we see him in net against Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:20:09 GMT -5
I want AS to explain how the hell this could happen..........
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Jan 23, 2003 20:26:49 GMT -5
We're in no way better Viper. Sundstrom brings nothing we need. He's soft, doesn't show up every game, doesn't produce but plays somewhat good defensively. He was on the Sharks 3rd and 4th line. Sharks and Bruins are better. Not us. What did you expect for Hackett ? We got a fourth liner ... + a 3rd pic ... Wow ...
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Jan 23, 2003 20:27:57 GMT -5
We're in no way better Viper. Sundstrom brings nothing we need. He's soft, doesn't show up every game, doesn't produce but plays somewhat good defensively. He was on the Sharks 3rd and 4th line. Sharks and Bruins are better. Not us. well let's just say i'll wait and see how this pans out but to be honest i think our returns are as good as we could've expected without anything in the way of sacrificing assets. Hackett was as good as gone If your right about sundstrum well then maybe we aren't better but we wouldn't be any better had hack bailed for nothing this summer anyway. maybe i'm overly optimistic again with the recent changes but i believe we will see improvements in the long term out of sundstrum that will be more beneficial than we may currently expect. nobody that i remember around here was giving any credit to bulis this summer actually he was trade banter if i remember correctly but he turned it arround sure he still has stone hands but he's been a great contributer to the club let's give sundstrum the chance to prove himself before throwing stones. I'm just hoping you're confusing him with someone else named sundstrum maybe
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 23, 2003 20:28:28 GMT -5
I want AS to explain how the hell this could happen.......... How what could happen? How Savard was able to unload an exorbitantly paid UFA-to-be for a solid defensive winger and a high round draft pick? Or how Savard didn't stop San Jose and Boston from making a deal amongst themselves? Relax. It's done. And its better than the consensus fourth-rounder a lot folks had Hackett going for *if* he were traded. In one week we've improved our head coach, exiled a troublemaker, and got a return on someone we could have just as well lost for nothing. I'll start kvetching if none of the above help the team either short or long term.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:29:30 GMT -5
What did you expect for Hackett ? We got a fourth liner ... + a 3rd pic ... Wow ... I'd say 3rd liner...not 4th liner... He fit in well with Ricci and Thornton..BUT SHOW ME THOSE KIND OF PLAYERS HERE! PK better improve and Dackell better be gone Damn you Savard for having us believe in you so freakin much. How can he let this happen?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:31:10 GMT -5
How what could happen? How Savard was able to unload an exorbitantly paid UFA-to-be for a solid defensive winger and a high round draft pick? Or how Savard didn't stop San Jose and Boston from making a deal amongst themselves? Relax. It's done. And its better than the consensus fourth-rounder a lot folks had Hackett going for *if* he were traded. In one week we've improved our head coach, exiled a troublemaker, and got a return on someone we could have just as well lost for nothing. I'll start kvetching if none of the above help the team either short or long term. You can look at it that way.... or you can look at it with the fact Bruins got better in goal and on defence........ Savard should have known Bruins would be in behind the scenes waiting for something to happen....
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Jan 23, 2003 20:31:27 GMT -5
How what could happen? How Savard was able to unload an exorbitantly paid UFA-to-be for a solid defensive winger and a high round draft pick? Or how Savard didn't stop San Jose and Boston from making a deal amongst themselves? Relax. It's done. And its better than the consensus fourth-rounder a lot folks had Hackett going for *if* he were traded. In one week we've improved our head coach, exiled a troublemaker, and got a return on someone we could have just as well lost for nothing. I'll start kvetching if none of the above help the team either short or long term. It might even help us since Boston will be able to beat a few team like NYI, TB, Flo, etc with Hackett. Not like they couldn't before ... but they have better chance at winning against those clubs now
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 23, 2003 20:33:38 GMT -5
What did you expect for Hackett ? We got a fourth liner ... + a 3rd pic ... Wow ... Go ask Lombardi what you can get for Hackett.
|
|
|
Post by Maritimer on Jan 23, 2003 20:33:58 GMT -5
So Marc did you want McLaren?
Would you have parted with Hainsey, Komo, or Markov for him?
What exactly did you expect for Hackett? A 3rd rounder and a 3rd liner.
I think San Jose gave up way toomuch
Jillson Sundstrom 3rd round pick 1 mil on the Sundstrom contract as per Sportsnet.
All for out of game shape Mclaren and a 4th
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Jan 23, 2003 20:34:13 GMT -5
You can look at it that way.... or you can look at it with the fact Bruins got better in goal and on defence........ Savard should have known Bruins would be in behind the scenes waiting for something to happen.... He knew ... how could he not ... wasn't like SJ was going to play hackett or re-sign him
|
|
|
Post by Maritimer on Jan 23, 2003 20:34:51 GMT -5
No way Doc....Lombardi gave up Jillson too
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:35:41 GMT -5
I didn't want Hackett with the Bruins that is all!! if they wanted him...McLaren or Rolston should have been coming our way.....
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 23, 2003 20:35:57 GMT -5
I certainly wasn't thinking Sundstrom, though the way San Jose was getting scored on lately, I didn't rule them out re Hackett. Didn't think they'd ship him out right away though. I was initially disappointed, not because of the return, but when you hear that Hackett, McLaren and Jillson are involved in a 3 way deal (which wasn't really), then sugar plums dance in your head. But reality sets in. Forget Boston. The Habs got a 3rd round pick for Hackett, basically what many people thought was all we could get. We hoped for more, but a 3rd, maybe a 2nd was all that was realistic. We also get Sundstrom. Ok, we have a good defensive winger who can kill penalties. Perhaps Pam can give us the scoop on his character. Is he really soft, or just not a banger?
We can't impose conditions on a deal, or chances are, it falls through. Do we really think SJ would take Hackett from us for Sundstrom and a 3rd, period? No, they wanted McLaren. If Savard says, I'll deal Hack, but you can't move him to Boston, the deal doesn't go through. The ultimate question is....could Hackett have been dealt for more, either now or later. I'm not so sure his value wasn't maximized. It's not a swap I feel uncomfortable with, though a tough guy would have been good.
From Boston's standpoint, they did very well. Jillson could become very good. I think Hainsey and Komi will be better, because I think they're more responsible in their own end. But I haven't seen Jillson play enough to form a good opinion. Pam? Where are you? Remember, that Hackett is a rental for Boston. They are not going to resign him. Jacobs is too cheap. So for Boston, it boils down to Mclaren and a 4th for Jillson and a rental. Great rental, and it solidifies a playoff spot for Boston (unless Hackett really dislikes Ftorek, or there's mass confusion on the ice whenever someone yells "Jeff!"
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:36:30 GMT -5
AS press conference being played on CKAC now
edit: they played a clip with AS saying BRUINS WOULD NOT TRADE MCLAREN TO HABS
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Jan 23, 2003 20:36:53 GMT -5
Go ask Lombardi what you can get for Hackett. Don't forget Jillson... he might be the better player in this transaction. JH is not young anymore. Bruins were not gonna give us McClaren. He is young and HE would have come back to haunt the bruins. I'm pretty d**m sure AS tried everything to land McClaren with JH but it was simply not possible. We got good return for Hackett ... better than I was expecting. + like someone else said McClaren is not in the east anymore which is a good thing for us.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:38:54 GMT -5
Bruins would not trade McLaren to us AS just said it.......... and he just added it was very likely we would have received nothing for Hack Never were alot of offers for Hackett God, wouldn't it have been better to deal Hackett 2-3 seasons ago instead of waiting so damn long?
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Jan 23, 2003 20:39:22 GMT -5
Go ask Lombardi what you can get for Hackett. lombardi gave up jeff jillson a highly touted young d-man would you want us to give up komi or hanisey or possibly markov for Mcclaren. along with Hackett
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 23, 2003 20:39:45 GMT -5
edit: they played a clip with AS saying BRUINS WOULD NOT TRADE MCLAREN TO HABS In other words, he confirms getting shafted. Bruins wanted Hack and got SJ to get him for them.
|
|
|
Post by Maritimer on Jan 23, 2003 20:40:45 GMT -5
Deal him when he was hurt for the last 2 years or before JT could string 2 strong games together. The other side we all seem to forget is how angry we would have gotten at AS if Hackett would have been hurt in practise tomorrow...than we would have gotten nothing
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 20:41:06 GMT -5
In other words, he confirms getting shafted. Bruins wanted Hack and got SJ to get him for them. Yes but Bruins did not want McLaren in their division... CKAC just confirms a part of Sundstrom's salary will be payed by Sharks....about 25% AS said.......
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 23, 2003 20:41:21 GMT -5
lombardi gave up jeff jillson a highly touted young d-man would you want us to give up komi or hanisey or possibly markov for Mcclaren. along with Hackett No. I am much happier with Sundstrom and a pick...
|
|