|
Post by FormerLurker on Jan 24, 2003 8:40:05 GMT -5
There seems to be some real disagreement on the Hackett trade. Some think that it's a bad deal because Hack ends up in Boston. Some think it's a bad deal because we got yet another third liner in return. Some like it because we got more than we could have expected.
I'm of the opinion that this is an excellent deal. Sundstrom is a third liner, true, and may not fill a present need. But he's versatile, young, a good skater, defensively responsible, and has some offensive skill. This is the kind of guy that rounds out a roster quite nicely, and this will be more apparent in a few years when the dead weight is gone.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 24, 2003 9:08:55 GMT -5
If you look strickly at the Habs and ignore the Bruins... it's pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 24, 2003 9:22:25 GMT -5
I think many need to re-think their position...option #1 all the way.
Dead stock with a fast-approaching expiry date turned into a very good (by ALL accounts, perhaps among the best) penalty-killers in the league, as well, a draft pick (yep, AS OBTAINED one this time around). Savard DID show patience here folks. This time last season Hack would have garnered no more than a 4th rounder at best. We definitely got better here...short term and long term. Ya, sure, it wasn't the 1 pound filet mignon many wanted, but the hunk of strip-loin is fine and dandy nonetheless - thank you very much!
As far as the Bruins are concerned, OF COURSE they were going to get better...whether we were in this transaction or not. They were dealing Kyle McLaren for heaven's sake! Again, considered by most GM's in this league to be a stud d-man, whowasn't and was NEVER going to play for the Bruins. Dealing him for a 9th rounder would have been an improvement in their situation.
We got younger, bigger, stronger, faster, and cheaper here folks. Dead wood has been moved and dead wood has been pushed to the forefront (Audette).
I like this deal. I like it very much.
CO
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 24, 2003 9:24:12 GMT -5
hehehe..good point he finally gets a draft pick...
|
|
|
Post by Psycorp on Jan 24, 2003 12:54:19 GMT -5
AS said yesterday there was two proposals, the one by San Jose and the second by New York. (On the same telephonic interview on CKRS radio with Ron Fournier)
But New York panicked and acquired Dunham eliminating this option. They offered Kloutec it would seem.
At the time Theodore was still struggling and Habs wanted to wait before trading Hackett.
Kloutec or Sundstrom and a third
Between Kloutec and Sundtrom, Kloutec is the one answering our needs the better but i like the third we got.
Anyway, this offer wasn't an option anymore so....
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jan 24, 2003 14:58:56 GMT -5
I think many need to re-think their position...option #1 all the way. Dead stock with a fast-approaching expiry date turned into a very good (by ALL accounts, perhaps among the best) penalty-killers in the league, as well, a draft pick (yep, AS OBTAINED one this time around). Savard DID show patience here folks. This time last season Hack would have garnered no more than a 4th rounder at best. We definitely got better here...short term and long term. Ya, sure, it wasn't the 1 pound filet mignon many wanted, but the hunk of strip-loin is fine and dandy nonetheless - thank you very much! As far as the Bruins are concerned, OF COURSE they were going to get better...whether we were in this transaction or not. They were dealing Kyle McLaren for heaven's sake! Again, considered by most GM's in this league to be a stud d-man, whowasn't and was NEVER going to play for the Bruins. Dealing him for a 9th rounder would have been an improvement in their situation. We got younger, bigger, stronger, faster, and cheaper here folks. Dead wood has been moved and dead wood has been pushed to the forefront (Audette). I like this deal. I like it very much. CO Summed up perfectly CO!
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 24, 2003 15:24:54 GMT -5
Between Kloutec and Sundtrom, Kloutec is the one answering our needs the better but i like the third we got. Not so sure. Kloucek is really raw. That's not what we need. We already have Hainsey to work in over the next 40 to 60 games, and then (hopefully) Komisarek. Kloucek could not be expected to help now or for a while. We need a defenceman more than a guy like Sundstom, but we need a d-man who can step right in. That's not Kloucek.
|
|
|
Post by JFM on Jan 24, 2003 19:53:52 GMT -5
What really bugs me about most of the fans and media is the short sighted narrow minded panic being expressed.
1. That Hackett in Boston could knock the Habs out of the play offs. Not a single caller on the team 990 or host or media member took the time to realize that Hackett is more likely to help us by beating the teams that are battling with us for the 7-8 spots.
2. That we should've dealt directly with the Bruins to get McClaren. Again most everyone dismissed the fact that San Jose had to give Jillson (IMHO their best D man prospect) to pick up McClaren. Savard said from day 1 that trading the future for the present is out of the question. I for one am very happy that Hainsey or Komisarek weren't sacrificed for McClaren who I believe is both injury-prone and overrated. Wasn't McClaren part of a defensive corps that our fowards made look like oversized pylons last spring? Bottom line is that the trade is is quite acceptable. Sundstrom DOES fill a need on the team. He is an upgrade to our checking line and PK.... Both needs IMO. Yes A big physical d man & bigger skilled forwards are more pressing needs, but this trade does improve the team. It's a shame that only P. Maguire, Bob MacKenzie, M. Brunet, (and most here of course) are openminded enough to see that this is a quality move.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 24, 2003 20:57:38 GMT -5
We had one player who we could trade and hope to get a return on. Hackett!!! We traded him for a two goal scorer.
We can't get a bag of pucks for Audette, Czerkawski, Juneau, Chouinard or Dackell. We can't trade our young players and prospects because Houle is gone and we need Hossa, Hainsey, Komi, Balej, Milroy et al. Any takers for Breezeby or Reverse?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 24, 2003 21:05:21 GMT -5
We had one player who we could trade and hope to get a return on. Hackett!!! We traded him for a two goal scorer. I doubt we could have gotten much less. Dackell is very similar to Sundstrom player wise and stats wise and we got him for an 8th. Hackett for and 8th and a 3rd? Certainly not a unique offer. But hey, maybe we'll be all impressed with Sundstrom and he'll actually have a place and role where he can look good. Unlike Czerkawski.
|
|