|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 21:54:36 GMT -5
Audette *can't* be sent down tomorrow. *If* Savard is sending someone down tomorrow, as you quoted him as saying, it will have to be someone other than Audette. Audette can *only* be sent down after noon Saturday. Perhaps Savard meant to say that someone will be sent down Saturday. But we already know that "Dead Dog Donald" has a ticket to Hamilton waiting for him Saturday But maybe as PTH said Donald was placed on waivers yesterday?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 23, 2003 21:55:03 GMT -5
Sundstrom is the "NEW" Hab type of player. Look at Ottawa and look at Sunstrom and tell me he is not of that mold. Nope. Sundstrom is a smallish, softish, overpaid, unproductive player, that don't work too hard. You don't see that kind stick in Ottawa too long. Savard has a clear image of what he wants a Hab player to be like. For sure: Audette, Berezin, Chow, Sundstrom. We see a trend no question there.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 22:00:08 GMT -5
More about Sundstrom:
Last year in playoffs...12 games, 1 goal 6 assists, 7 points,+3
career in playoffs: 24 points in 50 games.
49 points in 2000-01..
A few 40+ point seasons...not exactly sh*t here
Gotta find a way to make him get back to that level though. Hopefully a chance of scenery is what he needs
All I know is the spotlight is on him now......
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 23, 2003 22:02:32 GMT -5
But maybe as PTH said Donald was placed on waivers yesterday? Maybe. RDS said noon today. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by GARB08 on Jan 23, 2003 22:02:33 GMT -5
I will not criticize sundstrom, as being soft just yet.However,we did not need him. WE NEEDED A GOOD DEFENCEMAN. Unless the habs brass know something encouraging about SOURAY we still got problems. And personally,I dont beleive AS knew about the boston deal. Guys I hope I am wrong but ,this deal does nothing for me.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 23, 2003 22:28:47 GMT -5
It's the Boston part that freaks me out! We better not face them in the playoffs....... Why the heck is everyone freaking out about this? We'll be lucky to make the playoffs period, let alone worrying about who we'd play. Are we to win the Cup or something? This isn't Detroit trading CuJo to the Avs we're talking about here. We get a player with some upside, a 3rd round pick, and rid ourselves of the highest priced back-up in the league. I think AS did just fine with this one. I would have been happy with the 3rd rounder for a 30 something UFA to be that has yet to win a thing in his career. Nothing against Hack, but only in Montreal did he have the type of trade value that would bring us anything significant.
|
|
|
Post by daspin on Jan 23, 2003 22:32:31 GMT -5
If it's any help. I can't help but think of another junior star, that came to the NHL and was labelled as a 3rd liner, defensive player at best, much like Sundstrum.....That player is Craig Conroy....Who knows, givent the right circumstance, could Sundstrum perhaps flourish like Conroy has? I'll reserve judgement for now.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 23, 2003 22:33:24 GMT -5
Why the heck is everyone freaking out about this? We'll be lucky to make the playoffs period, let alone worrying about who we'd play. Are we to win the Cup or something? When playoffs are mentionned a lot of people think we're talking about who we'll face, when I think most playoff talk has to do with improving a rival, who might make them instead of us. I agree that who we face and what shape they're in is seriously unimportant.
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Jan 23, 2003 22:36:33 GMT -5
Could be Hossa, he hasn't done much for a while now. MT plays Hossa on the 1st line, we change coaches and Hossa loses it and gets sent down.... I love the storyline there ;-) If Audette can't go down till Saturday or Sunday, then my guess is that Hossa will temporarily be "sent down" to make room for Garon. Hossa will probably stick with the Habs, practice, watch Saturday's game, then get "called up" on Sunday when Audette goes down to Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by Psycorp on Jan 23, 2003 22:37:02 GMT -5
Guys, AS said on a telephonic interview (on CKRS radio) that trading Hainsey or Komisarek for Mclaren was out of the question . because his scouts and him felt both will be better than Jillson and McLaren.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 23, 2003 22:37:17 GMT -5
Do you guys realize that there are over thirty of us on line and another 15 or 20 lurkers? Hope we don't crash the server. fingers are crossed. Reminds me of the "Rivals" days actually. I don't know if Hackett was overpirced HA. He is a solid starting goaltender who would have made a difference anywhere he ended up. Did we get fair value? Well, he was going into UFA at the end of the year and I'm sure a lot of GMs played just on that. But, he is more of an impact player than Sundstrom is. A 3rd isn't bad. And Harry Sinden is chuckling; must be a 70's thing. Naaaa Right. McLaren will not lead them to the Promise Land. Hey, I bet they don't have snow out there do they? You see, life is still good (providing California doesn't slip off into the ocean). The hockey community hyped Marty Lapointe and look what he got. I honestly think the Bruins had a lot of help advertising McLaren from everyone including the media. The Bruins were in the driver's seat the whole way on this trade. They just sat back and entertained offers for months until ... hello who do we have here .... Seriously, I was hoping to have done better. We have a checker, yes, but we've had checkers for years. Oh well ... could be snowing ... just a sec .... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Gord on Jan 23, 2003 22:41:49 GMT -5
If Audette can't go down till Saturday or Sunday, then my guess is that Hossa will temporarily be "sent down" to make room for Garon. Hossa will probably stick with the Habs, practice, watch Saturday's game, then get "called up" on Sunday when Audette goes down to Hamilton. Since our game on Saturday isn't until 2pm, you can bet Mathieu Garon is already packing his bags and will be on-hand. The official transaction, Audette to Hamilton/Garon to the Habs, will likely not be processed until post-noon on Saturday, but both players will already be in-place with their new teams. After that, it's just paperwork. No one will need to be temporarily sent down, I would think. Think of earlier in the season when Hainsey was travelling with Montreal without being officially called up, it's the same scenario.
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 23, 2003 22:43:49 GMT -5
I don't think AS waited too long to trade Hack, I don't think he waited long enough! I believe had he waited closer to the deadline to dangle Hack, he would have come away with a better deal. If he has no takers then we lose him and his salary. Boston remains troubled in goal making thngs a little easier for us in the playoffs. Savard keeps claiming his hands are tied. Who ties them? Only Andre can tie his hands. As I said before, at the very least he could have forced Audette into the deal. San Jose is a nice retirement town for lazy overpaid underachieving pro athletes. So, Sundstrom...what does he bring us? Help to a penalty killing unit who just a short year ago was one of the most respected in the league. The same players are here. The system has changed a la Rick Green. So, change it back and voila! You have one of the most respected units in the league again. No? I fail to understand how they felt it was necessary to change the system when it was working so well. So what if Carbo is no longer behind the bench. Am I missing something here? It seems pretty clear to me that there are other back room deals going on here that are hurting this team.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 22:45:01 GMT -5
If it's any help. I can't help but think of another junior star, that came to the NHL and was labelled as a 3rd liner, defensive player at best, much like Sundstrum.....That player is Craig Conroy....Who knows, givent the right circumstance, could Sundstrum perhaps flourish like Conroy has? I'll reserve judgement for now. Let's hope....... It's a decent comparaison...Conroy is like a year or two older than Sundstrom and only busted out last year....
|
|
|
Post by darz on Jan 23, 2003 22:47:23 GMT -5
i don't see how anybody can slam AS for this trade. sundstrom WILL help the habs and is under 30, team becomes younger, plus we get a decent pick, 3rd, in return for a 3+ month rental. some people bitch about EVERYTHING. SJ gets screwed, BOS looks good, MONT looks good.
|
|
|
Post by Gord on Jan 23, 2003 22:47:27 GMT -5
I don't think AS waited too long to trade Hack, I don't think he waited long enough! I believe had he waited closer to the deadline to dangle Hack, he would have come away with a better deal. If he has no takers then we lose him and his salary. Come trading deadline, Hackett's salary has been mostly paid. Not a significant savings then, and Garon is lost as a free agent over the summer. Not an ideal scenario.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 22:48:04 GMT -5
I don't think AS waited too long to trade Hack, I don't think he waited long enough! I believe had he waited closer to the deadline to dangle Hack, he would have come away with a better deal. . If he does that Boston probably goes out and gets a number 1 goalie and AS loses Hackett AND in all likelyhood Garon for nothing...let's not forget that There was only 1 contending team in the league that really needed a number 1: it was Boston. But 1 thing I wonder...why are SJ paying part of Sundstrom's salary for this year? AS must have something else planned...
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 23, 2003 22:54:31 GMT -5
Come trading deadline, Hackett's salary has been mostly paid. Not a significant savings then, and Garon is lost as a free agent over the summer. Not an ideal scenario. why would Garon be lost?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 22:55:56 GMT -5
He has to play 12 games(30 minutes each game) in NHL this year or else he is a UFA.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jan 23, 2003 22:56:49 GMT -5
McLaren........isn't he one of the dmen that the Habs were making look slow and bad last spring? The Boston media were up in arms about their crappy defence and McLaren was part of it.
Sounds like SJ were getting a little desparate to me. Giving up a solid goalie rental for the stretch run (and playoffs if they ever make it) and a gilt edged prospect dman for an injury prone, relatively slow dman who is a contract headache. Plus paying 25% of Sunstrum's salary to boot. Somebody said money had a lot to do with this and I agree, said so on Doc's AS bashing thread.
And I agree with PTH, just a 3rd rounder would have been a fair exhange.
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 23, 2003 22:59:29 GMT -5
He has to play 12 games(30 minutes each game) in NHL this year or else he is a UFA. There's nothing preventing AS from playing Garon for the necessary 12 games before the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 23:02:10 GMT -5
There's nothing preventing AS from playing Garon for the necessary 12 games before the end of the season. yeah.. and that is why Hackett had to be dealt.. Either way..I think Garon will sign with us now...he knows NO team will give him a number 1 job just like that. He will be a backup somewhere else or here. His coach from Hamilton is here. He must now feel part of the organization(something he did not when he was put on waivers)
|
|
|
Post by zenseeker on Jan 23, 2003 23:02:20 GMT -5
i believe AS got fair value for Hackett. I don't think the trade rectifies any of our current problems. If AS didn't know sanjose would ship hackett to boston then he has no right being a gm in the nhl. I think he has to make another move in the next couple of weeks to clear this worsening log jam with our forwards. On the bright side we are protected from the cold of canadian winter, since we have plenty of dead wood to burn.
|
|
sXe
Rookie
Posts: 60
|
Post by sXe on Jan 23, 2003 23:02:23 GMT -5
If he does that Boston probably goes out and gets a number 1 goalie and AS loses Hackett AND in all likelyhood Garon for nothing...let's not forget that There was only 1 contending team in the league that really needed a number 1: it was Boston. But 1 thing I wonder...why are SJ paying part of Sundstrom's salary for this year? AS must have something else planned... Obviously, if they went ahead with this deal I was considered a win-win-win situation. Let's just see what Sundstrom brings. Have a coke and a smile ...
|
|
|
Post by Gord on Jan 23, 2003 23:03:50 GMT -5
There's nothing preventing AS from playing Garon for the necessary 12 games before the end of the season. Er, exactly, now that Hackett's gone.. That was our point. If Hackett had stuck around, there's no way Garon plays in the NHL. Ergo, he becomes an UFA and signs elsewhere. Now, even if he doesn't get those 12 games in, he knows he's got an almost guaranteed future in the NHL with Montreal, albeit as Theo's backup, so he (as Marc suggests) re-signs this summer.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 23, 2003 23:04:10 GMT -5
There's nothing preventing AS from playing Garon for the necessary 12 games before the end of the season. Well, we have 33 games left, do you think we can play Garon in 12 of those ? Even assuming we're blown out twice early in the game and that we play Garon for the 2nd half of those games, do you think we can give Garon 10 starts before the end of the year ? It's pretty tight.... I think Garon will have to want to stay here, I think he'll still have the right to become a UFA.
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 23, 2003 23:04:46 GMT -5
Obviously, if they went ahead with this deal I was considered a win-win-win situation. Let's just see what Sundstrom brings. Have a coke and a smile ... Make mine a scotch and Cuban and smile I will. ;Dl
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 23, 2003 23:16:26 GMT -5
Well I'm afraid we'll have to wait and see what Sundstrom brings, but, I believe it will be more of what we already have. I guess the 3rd round draft pick will help fill the farm team with players after Edmonton takes their's to Toronto next season.
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Jan 23, 2003 23:23:47 GMT -5
Its real easy to sit back and say this was a bad trade, or that it didn't fill our needs, or that we didn't get what we could. But there were too many variables that were out of AS's control. We would have liked a tough d-man, or an equally tough winger. You then need to match a team that is looking for a goalie in his thirties, an impending UFA, who may not possibly sign next year, and also be willing to give up such a player required by the Habs (if they even have one). How many teams out there need this type of goalie, with no guarantee that he will be playing beyond this year, with the players to meet the Habs needs? Given that the Bruins wouldn't part with a Rolston type or Mclaren without the pot being sweetened by Komi or Hainsey, probably zero teams!! If there are any teams with this need, willing to give up the type of players we need, then prior to ripping AS another orifice, it would probably be prudent to present alternatives, then just assuming that AS didn't do his due diligence to seek out alternatives. Which other team would be realistically interested in Hackett?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 23, 2003 23:29:08 GMT -5
The bottom line is:
Judging the winner of trades...especially as major as these...takes time...
Hackett may be retired by the time we determine the winner...
If Sunds can help us and *maybe* emerge as a Conroy type player(as Daspin suggested), Habs can draft something good with that 3rd rounder AND get to keep Garon in the org...this deal many not look all that bad in 2-3 years...
Let's just hope Hackett doesn't beat the us in those 2 remaining games.
Good night all.
|
|