|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 17, 2002 18:41:11 GMT -5
Can we package Hainsey now and go get a center or power forward? Or do we wait for a year?
As much as I like the idea of a blueline with Markov, Hainsey, Komisarek, Rivet and Souray, the fact is that it's more than we'll need if they all pan out as projected. Hainsey may be a card worth trading. This is what my brother thinks, anyway. He's not crazy and he's usually not drunk before 8:15 in the evening.
Hainsey/Ribeiro and a second to Phoenix for Doan?
Hainsey/Kilger and a second to Phoenix for Doan?
Hainsey/Bulis and a second to Phoenix for Doan?
Hainsey/Ribeiro and a second to Atlanta for Stefan?
Hainsey/Hosssa, a first and a third to Ottawa for Spezza?
Something like this?
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Dec 17, 2002 19:03:24 GMT -5
He's not crazy or drunk IMO but it sometimes is nice to be drunk. IF it adresses a need and the return is of equal value I have no problem doing it. Though I'd nix the Stefan deal. The best scenario would be if you could trade Hainsey straight up for a player like you suggested,but that is difficult unless he establishes himself in the NHL.Personally I would consider it but I would try and include other players rather than Bulis and Kilger with the right mix of players they could be more valuable to us. HFTO
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 17, 2002 19:09:43 GMT -5
Hainsey/Bulis for Ryan Smyth?
I would definitely have to get a power forward in return in any Hainsey deal. A young mid 20's power forward.
But then again..if Souray doesn't come back strong...the left side after Markov could be horrible for years to come
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Dec 17, 2002 20:52:04 GMT -5
I agree with you JV that if a big young (and talented) forward can be had for Hainsey, then i say do it.
I would by no means be shopping Hainsey as i see him eventually being a heck of an NHL d-man, but if he (with some change) can bring us a guy like Shane Doan, then i say go for it.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 17, 2002 22:05:32 GMT -5
From what I saw of Marleau's goal where he waltzed around Rivet, I think we have a huge scarcity of NHL calibre defensemen. Hardest position to fill.....keep everyone you have, unless we have 7 or 8, and then you can trade the last 2. Of course you can dump Traverse, Quintal, Dykhuis and Rivet anytime and play Markov and Brisebois for 60 minutes. Think of what it will do for their conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 17, 2002 22:07:15 GMT -5
With Petrov going down with an injury...don't be surprised if Hainsey is back up...
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 17, 2002 22:56:20 GMT -5
From what I saw of Marleau's goal where he waltzed around Rivet, I think we have a huge scarcity of NHL calibre defensemen. Hardest position to fill.....keep everyone you have, unless we have 7 or 8, and then you can trade the last 2. Of course you can dump Traverse, Quintal, Dykhuis and Rivet anytime and play Markov and Brisebois for 60 minutes. Think of what it will do for their conditioning. I don't know what Rivet was doing on that play. He had perfect position on Marleau and then took two quick crossover steps to the middle, opening up a lane to the net for Patrick. He played it so badly it was actually bizarre. Overall, though, he's been pretty good if not very good and he will be a valuable player over the next three or four years. Anyway, I"m not keen on trying to package Hainsey, but boy oh boy do we need a big boy at center.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 18, 2002 0:07:05 GMT -5
The problem with Rivet on that play was not his legs, it was his head. I could see Marleau accelerating and I was urging Rivet to turn and go with him, but he waited and waited, until it was too late and then turned. Weird. I do not like brain cramps, because there's no fixing them. You either gots it or you don't. I'd love to have a conversation with Rivet to to see how he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 18, 2002 0:34:14 GMT -5
The problem with Rivet on that play was not his legs, it was his head. I could see Marleau accelerating and I was urging Rivet to turn and go with him, but he waited and waited, until it was too late and then turned. Weird. I do not like brain cramps, because there's no fixing them. You either gots it or you don't. I'd love to have a conversation with Rivet to to see how he thinks. Watch it again if you get the chance. I'm telling you, shortly after Marleau crossed the blueline, Rivet moved from perfect position into the middle of ice as though he was trying to gain more speed or something, His right to left crossover steps took him out of the play. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it and I guarantee that Marleau was shocked to all of a sudden have a lane to the net instead of a funnel into the corner. It was not Marleau's speed but Rivet's misadventure that created that scoring chance. Once he'd gotten too far away from him and Marleau had the lane to the net, it was too late to recover. One of the worst plays Rivet has made in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 18, 2002 2:11:37 GMT -5
Marc has made a good point about the left side. We have no idea how Souray will recover and for that matter he seems to be pretty brittle. He might be the type that's always injured a fair amount. And, to be frank, how will Souray fair in this rule crackdown mode the NHL is in right now. Even last season, his finest hour was not during the regular season but during the playoffs, when the refs were still turning a blind eye to a lot of hacking, interference, cross checking etc. And Markov is not a big fella for a dman. The pounding he's taking could start to catch up to him.
We also should not assume that Komisarek will be as good as we hope he will be. If he were to turn out to be less impressive we could really regret shipping Hainsey.
Further, we still don't know how Hossa is going to turn out. He's certainly got the size, he's still young and could develop into what we want. He still looks promising.Then there is Ward who might help some.
Personally, I'd rather wait a year to see how everything shakes out. IMO top goaltending and a strong defence are the foundation for a top team. It's not as if this is a team with a lot of talent or quality depth on defence so that we can afford to give up very promising youngsters. And the Habs are just as weak as Phoenix is defensively.
And do we want to trade size on defence for size at forward? I really like the idea of 6'3" dman who have everything. I like the idea of a smallish defence even less that smallish forwards.
As far as Spezza goes, I really don't think that this kid is on the table. Ottawa is already strong on defence and are looking to Spezza for the long term. All the talk is of trading Bonk for salary reasons.
As for Doan, I don't think that any of those packages would get him. For a player of Doan's caliber Phoeniz will want a very good established player in return as part of the package I would think. Do we even know if Doan is available?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 18, 2002 9:37:00 GMT -5
As for Doan, I don't think that any of those packages would get him. For a player of Doan's caliber Phoeniz will want a very good established player in return as part of the package I would think. Do we even know if Doan is available? No. He's probably the most untouchable guy on that roster.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 18, 2002 9:46:52 GMT -5
Great topic for discussion.
YES! You deal from strength to fill holes on your team. I mentioned on another post that trading Theodore after last season could have been an interesting opportunity to fill big holes upfront, but we have only one franchise goalie. At this point we have 3 stud defensive youngsters and ZERO stud forwards.
So do you trade current value in Markov, anticipating that Hainsey can be all that and more, or do you deal Hainsey? Who is worth more at this point? Like it or not, these are the players that other teams want and will actually give something in return.
Shane Doan is a good possibility. How about Markov/Bulis for Jason Arnott? New Jersey is looking for some more punch. How about Markov/Perreault for Patrick Elias?
JV is right. You don't need both Markov and Hainsey IF they both turn out as projected. As much as you build a team from the posts out, our clear absence of an elite forward (current or projected) makes a trade a smart hockey/business decision.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 18, 2002 9:49:44 GMT -5
Dude, NJ and Dallas already have loaded bluelines. Do they really need Markov? I still think we should go after Ryan Smyth first and foremost if the Oilers can't afford him anymore...damn he would be awesome here...Smyth-Koivu-Zednik...wow...
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 18, 2002 10:21:55 GMT -5
Dude, NJ and Dallas already have loaded bluelines. Do they really need Markov? I still think we should go after Ryan Smyth first and foremost if the Oilers can't afford him anymore...damn he would be awesome here...Smyth-Koivu-Zednik...wow... Well NJ's D is getting older, particularly Stevens and Daneyko, and Markov could ultimately make Scott Niedermayer expendable. As for Dallas, Zubov is their only real offensive force, but I agree that right now they have no need for Markov. I love Ryan Smyth, but don't know if he adds the kind of dimension (particularly size) that we're missing.
|
|
|
Post by Habsolutely on Dec 18, 2002 10:52:02 GMT -5
It's a very good subject.. but honestly, I don't think we should do it.
Defensively, I think this is our worst weakness from them all. The only good puck-carrier that we have is Andrei Markov.. he's the only one being able to create any type of transition from defense to offense on a regular basis.. and effectively. Just look at our power-play, geez that we need improvement there.. and having good offensive players might just be the best solution to resolve it a lot.
Ron Hainsey is bigger and has perhaps the same qualities.. which would be a big plus for our defense.
However, I understand your point, since John Leclair, who wasn't playing at this best here, we never had this big and strong guy who would tire defenses.
I would wait to see what Hainsey can do.. since his value, for now, isn't enough to land anyone big and talented anyway.
But remember everyone, that defense isn't the strength of our team.. as good as Komisarek and Hainsey are projected to be, we aren't sure yet of anything.. even though, I trully believe that they'll be dominant for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Dec 18, 2002 11:17:03 GMT -5
It's a very good subject.. but honestly, I don't think we should do it. Defensively, I think this is our worst weakness from them all. The only good puck-carrier that we have is Andrei Markov.. he's the only one being able to create any type of transition from defense to offense on a regular basis.. and effectively. Just look at our power-play, geez that we need improvement there.. and having good offensive players might just be the best solution to resolve it a lot. Ron Hainsey is bigger and has perhaps the same qualities.. which would be a big plus for our defense. However, I understand your point, since John Leclair, who wasn't playing at this best here, we never had this big and strong guy who would tire defenses. I would wait to see what Hainsey can do.. since his value, for now, isn't enough to land anyone big and talented anyway. But remember everyone, that defense isn't the strength of our team.. as good as Komisarek and Hainsey are projected to be, we aren't sure yet of anything.. even though, I trully believe that they'll be dominant for years to come. Keep the boy... and keep him happy. He does things no other dman on the habs does... he plays tough against the leagues toughest forwards, he can finesse the leagues top Europeans... IMO, I think this guy can be the total package if he is teamed with the right partner on defence ( a stay at home tough guy, a Weinrich/Odelein type) this will allow Markov to wheel and deal when he gets the chance and also allow him to improve the habs transition game (we need more d-men who can help our transition game). With the speed this team has up front, the transition game is one of the most important keys to our success. I feel that since he became a regular d-man, our transition game has improved a lot and we've caught other teams with their pants down and that's why we seem to be getting more 2 on 1's and 3 on 2's.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 18, 2002 11:23:50 GMT -5
Hey we are going into a ''do we trade Markov'' thread here...that's a no-no ;D he stays The real question is, would you trade Hainsey(and more) for a power forward if somebody offers it?
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Dec 18, 2002 11:33:37 GMT -5
Hey we are going into a ''do we trade Markov'' thread here...that's a no-no ;D he stays The real question is, would you trade Hainsey(and more) for a power forward if somebody offers it? Not on MTHeads life. Keep the boys, grow with a youth movement.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 18, 2002 11:34:50 GMT -5
If the power forward is 24-25 years old?
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Dec 18, 2002 11:42:46 GMT -5
If the power forward is 24-25 years old? IMO, most power forwards don't really hit their groove until they hit 27-28, they're old enough to have the experience, but still young enough to physically do what they want to do. I also agree with you whole heartedly about the milleniums new defence by-line. That's why I want the habs to keep Hainsey, Markov and Komi.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 18, 2002 11:47:18 GMT -5
I want to see them together as well for years to come...but if we can get a young power forward for Hainsey...man I would have to consider it...
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 18, 2002 11:48:52 GMT -5
A big part of a decision like this is whether or not you believe the team can grow organically into a contender, or if you believe, at some point, the team is going to need an infusion of talent from outside the organization.
I believe the latter is true. We have the goalie, and we project to have a very solid core of Dmen over the next 3 years. I know Hainsey and Komisarek haven't proven a thing yet, but I'll go out on a limb and say they will both be very good NHL defensemen. We already know what Markov can do at this level.
What keeps me up at night is where the dyamism, the skill, the size UPFRONT is going to come from. Marcel Hossa? Josef Balej? Duncan Milroy? I don't think anybody seriously projects these guys to be genuine impact players. We will have a ton of bodies to replace in the next 2 years (Gilmour, Audette, Perreault, Juneau, Petrov, McKay, Czerkawski) and I don't know if guys like Hossa and Balej will be able to pick up the slack. Of course we can and will make some free agent signings, but we need a stud forward, particularly a centre, and you don't get those through UFA unless you are willing to pay big time, and even then it's a player that is usually past his prime.
A trade WILL happen. When is the question, but we're not going to add the missing piece by shipping Dykhuis and Petrov. So unless we find a 6'4", 220 lbs stud forward drafting in the 10-15 range (not likely) it will come down to guys like Markov and Hainsey. Gotta give to get.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 18, 2002 11:53:05 GMT -5
You are forgetting Zednik and Koivu. Who definitely have the skills to be top liners in the NHL.
Eventually, we will need to add some talented size to the top 2 lines for sure. Hopefully we draft it.
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Dec 18, 2002 11:55:19 GMT -5
Since the outset of this season, the major weakness of the Habs is their defense. Trading away our future at this position is not the way to go IMO. Our biggest problem is keeping the shots against and goals against down. I don't think we have that many issues offensively. It's always nice to have power forwards and I would love to see Smyth in the lineup. But not at the expense of the future. Keep Hainsey and all other defense prospects. If you want to trade players, start with Ribeiro or other "dead wood forwards" (this should get some reaction.)
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Dec 18, 2002 12:23:34 GMT -5
Since the outset of this season, the major weakness of the Habs is their defense. Trading away our future at this position is not the way to go IMO. Our biggest problem is keeping the shots against and goals against down. I don't think we have that many issues offensively. It's always nice to have power forwards and I would love to see Smyth in the lineup. But not at the expense of the future. Keep Hainsey and all other defense prospects. If you want to trade players, start with Ribeiro or other "dead wood forwards" (this should get some reaction.) You are absolutely right dude. We need a strong D to support the Theodore/Garon goaltending tandem we'll have in the next few years. If Gilmour retires at the end of this season and we can somehow unload Aud, Chow and Ribs (if by means of a trade, trade then to western teams, I don't want them to come back and haunt us) that will free up a boat load of cash to sign either a UFA power forward or a couple of wingers that can actually compliment as opposed to hinder their line mates.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 18, 2002 13:14:15 GMT -5
You still have to put the puck in the net.
Regardless of how well the team is playing today in terms of defense or shots allowed, in terms of talent, the obvious organizational strength of this team is on the blue line. To me it makes perfect sense to use some of that depth to address other weaknesses, particularly the lack of a big forward. If you make the right deal you can have the best of both worlds, rather than having a great blue line but not enough horses up front.
And trading guys like Ribeiro in the expectation that we would get anything meaningful in return is pure nonsense. I hope Marc is right, that we will find the missing piece in the draft, but guys that are 6'4", 220 lbs, that can play don't fall very far in the draft. A big part of why we allow so many shots is as much due to the fact that we have too many small, soft forwards who don't win the battles for posession, as it is because of poor Dmen.
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Dec 18, 2002 13:36:28 GMT -5
I am definitely not saying that we can land a big time player with Ribeiro. But if we are to trade prospects, or a combination of players, I would rather deal away this small forward over an up and coming defenseman. The last thing we need is to end up with a bunch of Dykhuises or Traverses. I agree with MyHabit, unload the expensive deadwood somehow and try and sign a free agent. That way, we don't have to give up our youth. I am not saying this will be easy. But that's why they pay AS the big bucks.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 18, 2002 15:54:00 GMT -5
I hope Marc is right, that we will find the missing piece in the draft, but guys that are 6'4", 220 lbs, that can play don't fall very far in the draft. We may find a guy like that in the draft but he'll be unlikely to help before 2007. We don't have one in our system. That's the problem. If we had two big centers in our system who were already developing, so that you could say one of them will likely make it, I could chill out. But as it is, we don't have one on our roster and we don't have one in the system. Saying you'll draft a guy this year or next to "fill that hole" is ridiculous, cause the hole will still be there next year, the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that.....
|
|
|
Post by darz on Dec 18, 2002 16:22:40 GMT -5
the only thing i would add is you shouldn't put souray in any of our future plans. with an injury that is going to take that long to heal, i don't think anybody knows what souray can do for the habs for at least a year. also i think trading a young dman isn't a bad idea, as long as we're getting a young guy in return, but i think it's a better idea to have the dman play a couple years for the habs to maximize his value. i think you can get a lot more for a young dman with 2 years nhl experience than one without any real nhl experience. just my 2 cents on he topic.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 18, 2002 16:42:55 GMT -5
We may find a guy like that in the draft but he'll be unlikely to help before 2007. We don't have one in our system. That's the problem. If we had two big centers in our system who were already developing, so that you could say one of them will likely make it, I could chill out. But as it is, we don't have one on our roster and we don't have one in the system. Saying you'll draft a guy this year or next to "fill that hole" is ridiculous, cause the hole will still be there next year, the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that..... Amen. People are so happy that we actually have some bright prospects, that they don't want to give them up, even if it helps the team in the long run. I remember when the Expos traded Delino DeShields for Pedro Martinez. What? A terrific, young 2B for a 150 lb relief pitcher? I was very skeptical at first... until I saw Pedro pitch the following spring training. The "big forward" problem isn't going to get solved in the draft (unless we really suck 3 years from now in which case we have other problems) and it isn't going to get solved by packaging the overpaid, veteran talent we have now. So unless you want to deal Koivu or Zednik, it's going to get solved by trading young, attractive talent like Markov and Hainsey.
|
|