|
Post by PTH on Jan 6, 2003 0:13:17 GMT -5
For all of you who still think AS is God-like...
Audette: (games-goals-assists-points) 32 2 9 11 Rucinsky: 32 9 6 15 Malhotra: 40 3 6 9
Are those 2 extra points Audette got (compared to Malhotra) worth his massive contract (7.5 million bucks to go), his top line minutes, his defensive liabilities, and his general ineptitude out there ? A Kilger-type clone in Malhotra would seem awfully attractive right now. And Rucinsky, well, despite what everyone likes to think of him, he's putting up OK numbers, given that he missed camp. While Rosie is a spare part, he is useful, as is Malhotra...... Audette right now is a liability to the organisation.
Czerkawski: 25 2 8 10 Asham: 35 6 7 13 Asham is cheaper and younger, and putting up OK numbers as well. Young cheap and gritty, we really couldn't use anyone like that on this team.... We all know Chow didn't get much of a chance, but that's AS's problem - he traded for too many similar players, and it's come back to haunt him.
We have Hossa and Hainsey getting chances, but this team could be far more advanced in its re-tooling without being any worse off on the ice right now. *sigh*
Oh, and btw, Berezin - 39 10 9 19 - in other words, this team could have kept Asham and a 5th, gotten a Malhotra-type player for Rosie, and have kept Berezin for the offensive role, and be better off. No matter how things might have worked out, they'd be in the same situation they are now, or better. *louder sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Jan 6, 2003 0:36:48 GMT -5
No question about it, Savard's last few moves (ie. the ones you mentioned) have all been failures. Nothing as brutal as S. Savard trading LeClair and Desjardins or Houle trading Roy and Turgeon but still poor moves none-the-less.
Malhotra would look pretty good right now on our 4th line, wouldn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Jan 6, 2003 0:42:56 GMT -5
For all of you who still think AS is God-like... Audette: (games-goals-assists-points) 32 2 9 11 Rucinsky: 32 9 6 15 Malhotra: 40 3 6 9 Are those 2 extra points Audette got (compared to Malhotra) worth his massive contract (7.5 million bucks to go), his top line minutes, his defensive liabilities, and his general ineptitude out there ? A Kilger-type clone in Malhotra would seem awfully attractive right now. And Rucinsky, well, despite what everyone likes to think of him, he's putting up OK numbers, given that he missed camp. While Rosie is a spare part, he is useful, as is Malhotra...... Audette right now is a liability to the organisation. Czerkawski: 25 2 8 10 Asham: 35 6 7 13 Asham is cheaper and younger, and putting up OK numbers as well. Young cheap and gritty, we really couldn't use anyone like that on this team.... We all know Chow didn't get much of a chance, but that's AS's problem - he traded for too many similar players, and it's come back to haunt him. We have Hossa and Hainsey getting chances, but this team could be far more advanced in its re-tooling without being any worse off on the ice right now. *sigh* Oh, and btw, Berezin - 39 10 9 19 - in other words, this team could have kept Asham and a 5th, gotten a Malhotra-type player for Rosie, and have kept Berezin for the offensive role, and be better off. No matter how things might have worked out, they'd be in the same situation they are now, or better. *louder sigh* The only problem is that Rucinsky is producing with St Louis.. not with the Stars.. which was the team that we made the deal with.. The downhill that Audette is taking is simply unexplanable. This guy played great during last season.. he played great in the post-season. And out of nowhere, he struggles so bad this year.. what does Savard have to do with this ? He simply was not lucky.. but when he got Audette, he made the right deal.. especially along with Van Allen, who did a pretty solid job in his role. As for Czerkawski, it is indeed turning into something bad.. but don't kid yourself, it's not like Roy was traded for 3 pieces of crap and it's not like Asham is tearing the league apart.. I don't miss him one bit.. especially with the signing of McKay. Savard took a gamble and it didn't work, what's your problem with it ? You don't like when people take chances ? Well, welcome in the business of trying to win (and improve). Savard is the man for a long time here, get used to it.. now.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 6, 2003 1:08:37 GMT -5
Cheap shot. Really.
Audette hasn't worked out. We don't need a comparison with other (mediocre or underperforming) players to tell us that. And we sure as hell don't need to be offered up the present stats as some sort of "proof", after the fact, that these moves were ill-considered or idiotic. It doesn't work that way. At least, not among people who can think.
You keep posting this stuff as if there was no historical context at all, including pending free agency (rucinsky, savage) , non-performance (ruckinsky, savage), illness and injuries (koivu, then audette) , uncertainty (how would koivu be?), the desperate need for scoring (last February), existing depth on the farm (from good drafts), the weakness of the 2002 draft (compared to this year), the business exigencies (of a playoff run), etc, etc....
So what? You want people who supported Savard in making one or both of those moves to say they were wrong to do so? Or to say "he's a moron for having made these moves"? The fact that something doesn't work is in itself no kind of proof that it ought not have been attempted in the circumstances. At least, not among men. Among bureaucrats and politicians steeped in the tradition of blaming others and protecting their own sorry a$$ess no matter what the cost, maybe, but that's where it ought to end. In the real world, you make choices, and not all of them are going to produce results. You think Savard didn't know there were risks in each of these transactions? You may not like the risks, but there's little question but that he weighed them and decided that on balance they were worth taking. He did the same thing when he got Zednick and Bulis, and when he signed Juneau, and when he signed Perreault (our leading scorer), and when he traded for Kilger, and when he went out and got Gilmour despite his last gm and the stats suggesting that he was done. Those moves worked. Others haven't. Has he crippled the franchise? Not even close. Would he prefer to be batting .1000? I'm sure he would, but he strikes me as a solid enough dude to take his lumps and move on. And if the only point of your post (hard to believe) was to say "see, he's not infallible", then the proper and more cogent response is "yeah?"....
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 6, 2003 8:35:45 GMT -5
Getting Audette was not a bad idea when you consider that we had no scorer on the team and did not have the chips to make a pitch for a top level one. Back when the trade happenned Koivu was out, Gilmour was struggling, Rucinsky was struggling, Bulis was going nowhere, Zednik looked like a perrenial 20 goals guy and Savage was entering his usual post-October slump. Audette, a 30 goals guy, became available at a very reasonable trade price and Savard grabbed him. It was unforseeable that Audette would enter the worst slump of his carreer the very next season. As for Malhotra, well Savard would have looked quite silly trading a 25 goals guy (Rucinsky) for a 4th line grinder when what he needed was offensive production. I defended this trade when it happenned and still do because frankly the motives to do it were good as was the deal in itself.
Czerkawski is a different story though. Our playoff and Berezin experiment outlined how soft and small we were up front. Getting Chow for Asham and a pick was not a bad deal but the trade had no good basis to happen and so it never worked. Even worst, I personally think that the Czerkawski trade, who was aimed to play on the first line is what threw Audette in his slump, as Donald did not seem to fit anywhere and eventually got benched very early in the season.
But the good news is that the organization seem to realize now that taking chances on Hainsey, Ribeiro, Hossa will be less costy then taking chances with Quintal, Chow, Audette and Berezin. Frankly, at some point, I didn't think they would realize it.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 6, 2003 10:39:44 GMT -5
For the umpteeth time why do you guys always bring Maholtra into these conversations?
No one knows if Savard was offered Maholtra for Rucinsky by the Rangers. In fact I am pretty sure he wasn't. When the Habs traded Rucinsky, the Rangers had no need for him as they were on a tear. And like Doc said, the Habs needed offence in those days. It's not like we needed a 4th line center desperately.
As for Berezin, PTH weren't you the one saying he flat out sucked last year? you were leading the pack for the ''let's non tender him this summer'' option
|
|
|
Post by Yeti on Jan 6, 2003 11:45:00 GMT -5
...just to complete the rationale of trading Asham or not getting Malhotra... I think Gratton, Ward, and eventually Ryder, will do as good , if not better, than Asham at the NHL level. Asham is not a rare commodity (same with Malhotra), but guys who can score 35 are. AS thought Chow could do it again along Koivu. It was a gamble. It didn't work, for now. I don't think we saw the last of Chow in Mtl yet. Who knows, maybe a new coach would give him another chance.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Jan 6, 2003 15:15:27 GMT -5
For all of you who still think AS is God-like... Audette: (games-goals-assists-points) 32 2 9 11 Rucinsky: 32 9 6 15 Malhotra: 40 3 6 9 Are those 2 extra points Audette got (compared to Malhotra) worth his massive contract (7.5 million bucks to go), his top line minutes, his defensive liabilities, and his general ineptitude out there ? A Kilger-type clone in Malhotra would seem awfully attractive right now. And Rucinsky, well, despite what everyone likes to think of him, he's putting up OK numbers, given that he missed camp. While Rosie is a spare part, he is useful, as is Malhotra...... Audette right now is a liability to the organisation. Czerkawski: 25 2 8 10 Asham: 35 6 7 13 Asham is cheaper and younger, and putting up OK numbers as well. Young cheap and gritty, we really couldn't use anyone like that on this team.... We all know Chow didn't get much of a chance, but that's AS's problem - he traded for too many similar players, and it's come back to haunt him. We have Hossa and Hainsey getting chances, but this team could be far more advanced in its re-tooling without being any worse off on the ice right now. *sigh* Oh, and btw, Berezin - 39 10 9 19 - in other words, this team could have kept Asham and a 5th, gotten a Malhotra-type player for Rosie, and have kept Berezin for the offensive role, and be better off. No matter how things might have worked out, they'd be in the same situation they are now, or better. *louder sigh* Your right, thanks for pointing this out to me. I kept telling everyone that Savard is indeed God like, but your hindsight has cleared things up. Job well done.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 6, 2003 17:28:07 GMT -5
I guess my main point is that the guys we let go/guys we could have gotten are all outperforming the guys we got...
Habsolutely: Asham is scoring goals and playing a well-rounded game, and Chow is in the AHL making 2.6 million, and you're happy because we have McKay making another 2.1 million ? Asham is showing he can do the job, and we're 4 million (or thereabouts) poorer than we could be otherwise. Add Audi's 3 million, and you could have 7 million to spend on a top player, rather than all these spare parts. Every season you have players traded/dumped because they are too expensive, with 7 million around, we could be in the running.
JV: yeah, I guess it is a cheap shot. But it's AS job to get a decent team out there, and right now the 2 guys we have are clearly being outperformed by the guys we don't have (and could have !), and we have no future upside. I'm not saying AS shouldn't try things - the move for Berezin was IMO a decent bet, he tried, it doesn't work out, you bail, and haven't lost much. Getting Chow when you have no room to play him, or getting Audette on a long-term contracts are NOT intelligent moves. I know circumstances were bleak when we got Audette, but it's still a brutal move.
Doc: The slump wasn't foreseeable, but getting a 1-dimensionnal player on a 4 year big-money contract is a recipe for trouble. But I agree that it's good that the kids are finally getting chances. Too bad it couldn't be under more controlled circumstances, and not with millions upon millions not performing.
Marc: For the "umpteeth " time, you know the answer. Because Rosie was later traded for Malhotra, and even if Manny wasn't available it's a safe enough bet to say that a Malhotra-caliber or Malhotra-type player would have been available. I don't like speculating about potential past trades, but here it's a pretty clear-cut situation after all. If you disagree with the rationale, fine, but don't keep on asking about it. As to Berezin, yeah I wanted to see him go, but I'd rather have kept him and Asham than traded both and gotten Chow in return (in terms of roster players). And anyhow, at that point we were stuck with Audette.
Yeti: Well, a good 3d-4th liner who can score and has some grit can be a very valuable guy, while we have other potential grinders in the system, that doesn't detract for Asham's value. I'd rather have a kid who can play for 10 years as a grinder than a guy who is 1-dimensional and might score 35 if we're lucky, and who's gone after a season or 2. That we didn't get lucky just makes it worse - but I do agree that it's a decent enough gamble in and of itself, but AS didn't give Chow much of a chance, with our surplus of RW's and all.
Montreal: Yes it's hindsight, but I think there's no huge surprise here. Audette has always been a 1-dimensional player, who doesn't have to lose much ability to becoem completely ineffective, and the rest of the guys (Malhotra, Rucinsky, Asham) are simply playing to their ability. As to Chow, well, he never had a chance, and again, that's AS's fault.
MT has his faults, but IMO right now AS hasn't been doing all that great a job, either.
As to all the kids - the only AS-drafted kid to play on the team to date is Jarventie, and while I'm happy to see things looking up I won't let myself be carried away by hope.... hyped-up prospects are just that - prospects. We've had plenty not work out in the past, let's not get ahead of ourselves, yet again.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 6, 2003 17:40:17 GMT -5
While I don't think Savard is anywhere near God-like, I still think he's doing a pretty good job. The only thing I don't understand is the overpaying issue. I'll come back to that one.
I don't know if we're getting the whole picture of the Czerkawski/Asham deal. I mean, clearly the Islanders knew who they were getting and have to pleased with Asham's results. He's tough player who plays both ends of the rink very well and can adequately fill in just about anywhere in a pinch.
Czerkawski may indeed be soft, but I honestly feel he would have produced more had he been properly managed. I think Savard took a chance that Czerkawski would bring his top game back due to a change of circumstances and that chance really failed. But, he is capable of much, much more than he's been showing in Montreal. He's been targeted by Therrien and that has to weigh on any player.
You know, when Audette came to town for Rucinsky I applauded the deal because of two reasons. First, Savard moved a perennial sulker in Rucinsky. It was becoming commonplace for this guy to hold out every time his contract came up for renegotiation and I was really happy to see his attitude go somewhere else. Secondly, Audette actually responded to the move immediately. He was motivated, all over the ice and putting up numbers when Koivu was his centre. However, I honestly think that wrist laceration is still affecting him somewhat. Now, that doesn't excuse his lackluster play by any means. I think he would be producing a tad more if the attitude were there that's for sure.
That money issue is endless. Every one of these guys are overpaid; Chow, Audi, Brise, Rivet, and even Théodore to a lesser extent. I don't know what to expect come the next round of negotiations with other players. They're going to cite these overpaid guys when their time comes. And why not? They have a case.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 6, 2003 19:41:29 GMT -5
Getting Chow when you have no room to play him, or getting Audette on a long-term contracts are NOT intelligent moves. I know circumstances were bleak when we got Audette, but it's still a brutal move. .************* I don't think the arm injury helped where Audette's concerned. Who knows where he'd be at in terms of his play had that not happened. Who knows how much more tradeable he would have been but for getting cut up and missing 35 games. Czerkawski is a different story, as Doc also pointed out above. It just didn't make roster sense unless you were positive you could and would deal either Audette or Petrov. Ending up with all three on the roster and then finding out three games into the season that you need more size up front, that's not good. I wouldn't want Rucinsky back. And Manny Malhotra is simply neither here nor there. He wouldn't help you score in a playoff run and he's not very likely to be any kind of impact player down the road. I mean, weren't you the guy who was calling Kilger and Bulis (or at least Bulis) spare parts? What the hell would Manny Malhotra be? So why not take a shot on Audette? One reason, really: the contract length. That was the downside risk; more so than the imagined "loss" of whatever you could otherwise get for Rucinsky. Anyway, it's not over yet. So far, we've probably paid about 1.75 million for Audette (insurance likely paying the bulk of last year while he was out). It hasn't hurt yet. And if AS can somehow unload Donald it may end up hurting only a little.
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Jan 6, 2003 19:54:16 GMT -5
Right now, everyone is bitchin' and complainin' (me included) that AS doesn't take enough risks. Yet when he got Audette and Chow, he took a risk. It didn't work out. I am not going to type here and chop AS's head off because he made a risky move to make the team better in an area where we obviously lacking. Quite often, when you acquire a player, it's a player who doesn't fit into the offering team's system. You take a chance and bring him in and hopefully, that player can thrive in your system. We have seen this phenomena time and time again with players we have dealt elsewhere (ie, LeClair) Sometimes it works out great, like Audette was before his accident. He was bringing, at that time, what we needed...offense. His injuries have obviously impacted his play and we have to live with that until he is moved. That's life. That's risk. AS's job is to take risks to make the team better. Some work, some don't. But I would rather see him trying things, than just sitting idly by and waiting for the season to end with us out of the playoffs, again. I think AS is doing a good job (would be excellent if he would can the crash test dummy behind the bench) and we are going to see his brilliance when our prospects make their way to the team in a few years. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jan 6, 2003 19:57:28 GMT -5
BC started with this Malhorta LOVE and this guy has taken mythical proportions on this board.
IN FACT, at one point Sather was going to place him on waivers because his work ethic SUCKED. He was offering him for a wet paper plate of stale lasagna. EVEN UP.
Since when did this "nothing special" become so special? His greatest value to the world seems to be the puny offensive weapon his name provides for all the anti-Savard pedicured internet kick boxers.
Bah...................
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Jan 6, 2003 20:08:04 GMT -5
Here, here, Mr. Addict.
I'm pretty sure in one of BC's recent posts he was waxing all poetic and gushy about getting Manny for Rosie and Mike Grier for the two second round picks the Caps gave up to get him! I almost fell out of my walker. He had Grier on the first line. For two high picks. So we're two picks down and we have Manny Malhotra and Mike Grier. No thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Psycorp on Jan 6, 2003 20:14:48 GMT -5
I too think Audette never completely healed from his wrist injury In the playoffs, he played well but i suspect he was on painkillers all along. This season, he doesen't seem to have his magic touch arournd the net, his play is kind of similar from last year but he seem totaly unable to finish. The only reason i could understand the high playing time is Therrien know he play hurt and appreciate those kind of players. If it isn't the case, Then i'm at a loss to explain why he get so many chances...
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 6, 2003 20:27:52 GMT -5
Here, here, Mr. Addict. I'm pretty sure in one of BC's recent posts he was waxing all poetic and gushy about getting Manny for Rosie and Mike Grier for the two second round picks the Caps gave up to get him! I almost fell out of my walker. He had Grier on the first line. For two high picks. So we're two picks down and we have Manny Malhotra and Mike Grier. No thanks. To be fair, Maholtra wasn't all that bad a gamble way back when. He sure wasn't given a fair shake in New York but I do remember him being with the Rangers for an extended stint at one point. I think Mrs4um was high on him as well, but I could be wrong. Hey, the guy I wanted back then was Marc Savard, but I think he and Maholtra were considered close to being untouchable at one point. Anyway, I would have loved to have had Maholtra on board at one point. Not now of course, but back then ... Oh well. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 6, 2003 20:56:16 GMT -5
BC started with this Malhorta LOVE and this guy has taken mythical proportions on this board. And why not? Haven't you heard of Manny from Heaven? Actually I like Malhotra. You want a guy who can replace Juneau, with a little more muscle, that 's him. Don't expect much offense, but good wheels and good defensive instincts.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jan 6, 2003 20:56:44 GMT -5
Yea, count me in with JV, Doc and HA. Context is all important. The man's made decisions, some worked out, some didn't, and of the latter some were of his own doing (ie they were mistakes) and some weren't (as in the case of Audette and his severed arm tendons/muscles etc). I don't think that he's a god but I do think that, looking at things overall, the club is on the right track. Sure I would like to see some changes (coach) but I'm still of the mind to be patient. It is not easy to turn an organization around on the fly so I'm kind of keying in on the 2004/05 season as the litmus test.
But to say this, and then to have someone misconstrue your position into "AS is God" (when it really pretty clearly isn't your position) is, as JV says, a cheap shot.
As for the mistakes, I wonder where things will stand in March. If Audette continues to be a spectacular bust, with that arm of his, and is moved aside (however) and Czerk gets to play regularly he just might start putting up some numbers. The trade might not look so bad then. On the other hand, if things are left to ride along as they are now then I do think that will be a significant negative to chalk up to AS.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 6, 2003 21:05:19 GMT -5
Maholtra was simply rushed to the big leagues by the moronic Rangers organization
As an 18 year old they kept him up to be a 2nd line or 3rd line center as I recalled. They had just lost Messier to Vancouver and they put all kinds of pressure on the kid
He lost his confidence and never was the same since.
He'll probably never be more than a 3rd/4th liner...when he could have been a 2nd liner if handled properly IMO
Basically, his case is similar to Kilger's...
I agree with HW's 2004-05 season(if there is no lockout) as the litmus test for AS's. That will make it 5 years with him at the helm(2000-01, 2001-02,2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05) and that's how much time a GM should be given IMO. Almost all of the contracts will be done so the Habs should have a completely different look and hopefully a winning one.
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Jan 7, 2003 11:37:35 GMT -5
I guess my main point is that the guys we let go/guys we could have gotten are all outperforming the guys we got... Habsolutely: Asham is scoring goals and playing a well-rounded game, and Chow is in the AHL making 2.6 million, and you're happy because we have McKay making another 2.1 million ? Asham is showing he can do the job, and we're 4 million (or thereabouts) poorer than we could be otherwise. Add Audi's 3 million, and you could have 7 million to spend on a top player, rather than all these spare parts. Every season you have players traded/dumped because they are too expensive, with 7 million around, we could be in the running. . Scoring goals.. oh boy.. 6 goals, here we have our new Rocket Richard winner hands down. As for playing a well rounded game, where did you find that ? Even our boy McKay plays well in his own end. You won't change my mind at all on that one. I'll take McKay's leadership, size and experience over everything that Asham can give ( when he wants to give it I should say). McKay will perform even better in the post-season which is the time of the year when he excels.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 7, 2003 19:19:12 GMT -5
Scoring goals.. oh boy.. 6 goals, here we have our new Rocket Richard winner hands down. As for playing a well rounded game, where did you find that ? Even our boy McKay plays well in his own end. You won't change my mind at all on that one. I'll take McKay's leadership, size and experience over everything that Asham can give ( when he wants to give it I should say). McKay will perform even better in the post-season which is the time of the year when he excels. McKay has 5 goals, Asham has 6. Asham is smaller, but feistier, much younger and much cheaper. For the team for the here and now I'd agree McKay is marginally better, but for the long-term, Asham would be the better fit IMO. McKay is just another spare part we'll have to replace over the next couple of seasons, Asham might be a role player as well, but he could play the same role foer the next 5 years. We can claim that we'll have decent replacements coming through the system, even if we do, we'll have to break them in just as we've got tons of players joining the team. Asham could have been part of a transition group - youngish players who can play well enough now and continue to contribute after the upcoming influx of youngsters is done. I still worry that Asham-Chow will be just as bad a deal as Reichel - Isbister was for Phoenix... it's already pretty bad. Asham is to me a cross between Keane and Tucker - both very useful players over the years.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 7, 2003 19:26:51 GMT -5
Yea, count me in with JV, Doc and HA. Context is all important. The man's made decisions, some worked out, some didn't, and of the latter some were of his own doing (ie they were mistakes) and some weren't (as in the case of Audette and his severed arm tendons/muscles etc). I agree that context is important, which is why I'm OK with the whole Berezin experiment, including trading him and seeing him get back ontrack elsewhere. But I think the Audette deal just wasn't a worthwhile risk, whatever the circumstances. His salary is draining away the profits from the playoff run, and his being given chance after chance is seriously messing up team chemistry IMO, as well as costing us on the ice every time he steps out there. And if context is important, then the Chow deal loses all justification as well - you don't get a guy like Chow just to not give him a real chance. I actually think Chow could have worked out well enough, but the Habs obviously weren't willing to give him a real chance, so why bother getting him I wasn't trying to construe any individual position that way - I heard so much talk about St-Savard this summer, when doubting him was sin, that I might still tend to overestimate what people think of him. Agreed to a point, but he put the guy on waivers, which essentially means he's largely given up on him. If he gets another chance and makes it I'll chalk it up as a good salvage job, but we shouldn't forget even then that AS was the guy who scrapped him and gave every team out there a chance to get him.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 7, 2003 19:29:20 GMT -5
BC started with this Malhorta LOVE and this guy has taken mythical proportions on this board. IN FACT, at one point Sather was going to place him on waivers because his work ethic SUCKED. He was offering him for a wet paper plate of stale lasagna. EVEN UP. Since when did this "nothing special" become so special? His greatest value to the world seems to be the puny offensive weapon his name provides for all the anti-Savard pedicured internet kick boxers. Bah................... Actually, I was as happy as he was to see Malhotra dealt for Rosie - it finally gave us a comparison point for Rosie's value.... Anyhow, at this point, trading Rucinsky for a bag of pucks would have been preferable. Or even putting him on waivers - then his contract runs out and it's done with. Instead, we owe a stiff about 7.5 million bucks.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 7, 2003 19:43:55 GMT -5
Right now, everyone is bitchin' and complainin' (me included) that AS doesn't take enough risks. Yet when he got Audette and Chow, he took a risk. It didn't work out. I am not going to type here and chop AS's head off because he made a risky move to make the team better in an area where we obviously lacking. Well, were the risks justified, calculated ? Audette had 11 million bucks left on his contract, that's gotta weigh in the balance quite a bit. Audette on average plays about 60 games a year, scores slightly below 20 goals, and isn't known for anything other than offense. Is this kind of potential return return really worth the risk that comes with an 11 million dollar contract - especially after he managed to get himself traded from a team that went out and got him as a UFA and gave up after all of 20 games ? That's gotta fire off some alarms.... Yup, we gave it a go with Berezin, and that's OK, it can't always work out. Yup, you get an underperforming kid and it can work - but are there a lot - or even any - examples of guys Audette's age suddenly exploding ? I think not. How many games did Audette play before getting hurt ? 5 ? He was largely living off an adrenaline rush, and I remember even when he got hurt, I couldn't help but think that he'd be drastically overrated for his entire recovery period, simply because of that one spurt. Plenty of people on here talk about that era as one where we were "without our top 2 offensive players" - as if Audette were anything close to being in Koivu's class. Koivu is a top liner, Audette has typically been a 4th line PP specialist.
|
|
|
Post by darz on Jan 7, 2003 20:39:07 GMT -5
i know that audette has stunk up the place this year, but he did help us in the playoffs last year, and imo thats worth rucinsky alone. i can't believe how much people whine about us losing rucinsky & asham. if these are the best guys your gm has move, well HURRAH!! And about the salary issue, i agree the 2 1/2 years we have with audette seems like alot, but i'm sure if the habs just wanted to cut ties with audette, im sure he would take a 50% buyout.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 7, 2003 22:17:38 GMT -5
i know that audette has stunk up the place this year, but he did help us in the playoffs last year, and imo thats worth rucinsky alone. i can't believe how much people whine about us losing rucinsky & asham. if these are the best guys your gm has move, well HURRAH!! And about the salary issue, i agree the 2 1/2 years we have with audette seems like alot, but i'm sure if the habs just wanted to cut ties with audette, im sure he would take a 50% buyout. No, he wouldn't. A buyout is 2/3 of the salary left to be paid out on a players' contract. A buyout now would cost us 5 million, over the summer of 2003, it'll be down to 4 million.... Which would mean that the playoff run he had would have cost us about 9.25 million. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 7, 2003 22:34:06 GMT -5
Therrien is terrible and now Savard is losing his luster. We've been more than fair with AS and given him lots of chances. His drafting has been OK (Hudler would have raised him to very good) but his trading, contract management, and support of Therrien have shown that he is not the guy to lead us to the promised land.
|
|