|
Post by sonnytheman on Dec 16, 2002 17:29:21 GMT -5
what would you guys rather get in return? Older vets to provide leadership (a la Recchi)? Younger guys so that we have more potential (Ference, Bulis)? Or average players to plug a hole or two (like Dykhuis was)?
Personally, I'd do my best to try to get picks, and decent ones. Say, Czerkawski and a 4th for a 2nd....or something along those lines. I just feel that Montreal, at this point, should try stockpiling quality youngsters (Plekanec, Hossa) instead of getting over-the-hill vets (Gilmour, McKay). The Flyers apparently have something like 2 1sts, a 2nd and like 4 3rd round picks this draft. I kinda wish Montreal had the same thing.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 16, 2002 17:34:02 GMT -5
Yeah same here...I'd go for picks...just to clear up some room on the roster...
The Flyers, last year, had like 12-13 picks for the 2001 draft and they were able to make 2 blockbuster deals(Oates and the one to get the 4th pick overall) because of it.
This year, they have Phoenix 1st(they got for Langkow...could be a great pick) and their's.
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Dec 16, 2002 17:36:38 GMT -5
If we were to trade players I would go for draft picks and bring up the young guys.
If we could fit a 4th line with the likes of Ribiero, Gratton and Ward to see what they can do. They (Gratton and Ward) are awesome together in the AHL, why not bring them both up together with the big club. Of course this can only happen if we get rid of 2 Vets who are not performing (Audette, Chow, Blouin, etc)
Go for picks let's build a dinasty!
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 16, 2002 18:27:13 GMT -5
Well it depends on who is traded, and to where. We are in a playoff hunt, so we have to be careful not to make too many moves. I'm afraid to say this, but the injury bug has stayed away (with the exception of Souray) but who knows what the future holds in store for us, as injuries have been so bad over the last few years even if it was a lot better last year. (don't want to jinx us)
But if any moves were to be made, Audette would be my first to go. Then Chow or Dykhuis. I hate to see Hackett go, but if not, we will most likely lose him and Garon for nothing (except a 3rd or 4th round pick as compensation, if we don't sign any UFA's in return). I don't see any team interested in Hackett right now, but before March trade deadline, I hope some team that we aren't fighting with for a playoff spot, comes calling for Hackett.
If we could move Dykhuis, Hainsey could take over his spot, and if Souray comes back, then Traverse can move to the 7th spot. Which we do need to have someone at 7th, I just don't want Hainsey to be 7th.
Here's one ideal that may not be very well liked, but I would consider moving a good prospect in a package if the right deal came along. We have a lot of middle of the road prospects like Balej, Milroy, Plekanec, Shasby, Jarventie, Ward, Chouinard, Lambert, Linhart, (I wouldn't move Komisarek, Hainsey, Hossa, Perezhogin, Higgins) but we do have a lot of prospects, plus some darkhorse prospects that you don't trade cause they have little value (Archer, Korneev, Ferland, Himelfarb, Eneqvist, Michaud, Deveaux). So there's no way all these or half of these guys will pan out, so moving one or two for a player that would really help this team, I would go for.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 16, 2002 18:29:20 GMT -5
The only tradeable guys have very little value, so just dumping their salaries would be a bonus.
I think we'll have to take players in return (ie - take salaries)... hopefully we could get some useful spare parts who can be pushed aside when kids are worthwhile - ie, guys like Bill Lindsay.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 16, 2002 18:37:13 GMT -5
But if any moves were to be made, Audette would be my first to go. Then Chow or Dykhuis. Chow has cleared waivers, Audette probably would, and Dykhuis won't fetch you much. It's easy to make a list of players we don't like, but actually finding a way to get a team to pick one of them up is a lot tougher. Every team has a long list of prospects, actually most have longer lists since their GMs haven't thrown picks into just about every deal they've made. You're right that we don't have room for most of those guys, but that's not really a problem - most won't make it anyhow. Those that you'd trade have marginal prospects of actually making it, and IMO their value is higher for us in their potential than in a trade. Having one of them as a throw-in to complete a deal is one thing, but we don't have many other pieces to making a trade for a player who could really help out this team. About everyone who wants picks - wish all you want, but AS has shown a distinct lack of interest in stockpiling picks. Actually, he has yet to make a single deal that nets us a net increase in number of picks when all is said and done. It's more likely that we'll see AS add in some picks to make some other team taking on salary seem a bit more palatable.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 16, 2002 18:46:19 GMT -5
At first blush, the reduction in the number of our picks might be alarming, but the quality is way up there. In 2001, for example, we had 4 picks of the first 71. I'm not saying that 5th and later round picks aren't valuable -- and indeed if you have more of them you increase your chances of uncovering a guy like Markov -- but it's the more a function of making your picks work for you, and if you do that well you'll be okay even if you have 6 picks and another team has 10. A good example is Ferland, who was selected 212th overall. How many Canadian players selected after 100 got invited to the WJC camp? Not many, I'd wager.
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Dec 16, 2002 23:03:57 GMT -5
Yeah same here...I'd go for picks...just to clear up some room on the roster... The Flyers, last year, had like 12-13 picks for the 2001 draft and they were able to make 2 blockbuster deals(Oates and the one to get the 4th pick overall) because of it. This year, they have Phoenix 1st(they got for Langkow...could be a great pick) and their's. Marc how do you know all of this $hit? You are in the wrong career path, you should be labouring away for a junior hockey team watching prospects. They probably wouldn't even have to pay you!!
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 16, 2002 23:29:31 GMT -5
At first blush, the reduction in the number of our picks might be alarming, but the quality is way up there. In 2001, for example, we had 4 picks of the first 71. I'm not saying that 5th and later round picks aren't valuable -- and indeed if you have more of them you increase your chances of uncovering a guy like Markov -- but it's the more a function of making your picks work for you, and if you do that well you'll be okay even if you have 6 picks and another team has 10. A good example is Ferland, who was selected 212th overall. How many Canadian players selected after 100 got invited to the WJC camp? Not many, I'd wager. And a better example is Konstantin Korneev who was picked 275th, and should actually be playing in the WJC, as our youngest prospect. But both are having good seasons, and both were good late picks by Savard and company. Also, we have had 5 1st round picks in the last 3 drafts, from 7th to 25th. (Hainsey, Hossa, Komisarek, Perezhogin, Higgins). Since we have 1 1st rounder in our lineup that was drafted by the Habs. (Koivu) we need much much better results from our 1st rounders.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 16, 2002 23:35:50 GMT -5
Chow has cleared waivers, Audette probably would, and Dykhuis won't fetch you much. It's easy to make a list of players we don't like, but actually finding a way to get a team to pick one of them up is a lot tougher. Every team has a long list of prospects, actually most have longer lists since their GMs haven't thrown picks into just about every deal they've made. You're right that we don't have room for most of those guys, but that's not really a problem - most won't make it anyhow. Those that you'd trade have marginal prospects of actually making it, and IMO their value is higher for us in their potential than in a trade. Having one of them as a throw-in to complete a deal is one thing, but we don't have many other pieces to making a trade for a player who could really help out this team. About everyone who wants picks - wish all you want, but AS has shown a distinct lack of interest in stockpiling picks. Actually, he has yet to make a single deal that nets us a net increase in number of picks when all is said and done. It's more likely that we'll see AS add in some picks to make some other team taking on salary seem a bit more palatable. Thats all I was doing, was making a list, it will be very hard for Savard to move Audette, Chow, and Dykhuis, but who knows, I didn't think anyone would take Berezin. As for Savard trading picks, I don't see it as anything major here's most of the picks he moved. 8th '01 for Dacks good move. 3rd '02 Berezin= 4th '04 not bad. Dyment for '03 5th too early. 5th '03 Chow his worst move, IMO. 8th '02 1st '02 for 14th overall, an 8th to move up one spot, not a big deal, but maybe uneccessary. 4th '02 5th '02 for 99th overall, guess he liked Lambert. 7th '02 Blouin goon for a 7th, not great move. Any more?
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 17, 2002 0:11:51 GMT -5
Let me take it one step further. Here's a better break down of Savard's draft pick trades, if I miss any let me know, since I am doing this from memory.
'01 Well '01 was Savard's first draft as GM, and it was considered a deep draft by many. Savard made 2 moves of picks, 1 for, 1 against. He traded 1 8th rounder for Dacks, a good to very good move, don't think too many will complain here. Next he traded a 2nd rounder in the Zednik deal to get us another 1st rounder. Great move all around. Zednik Bulis 25th overall for Linden, Zubrus, and extra 2nd round pick and 1M for Linden's salary.
'02 Well in Savard's 2nd draft, he was more active with the picks. '02 was considered not a very deep draft by any means. If you are going to trade picks, a weaker draft is the time to do it. Savard traded our 1st rounder (15th) and 8th rounder to get the 14th overall. I read he did this cause Oilers or some team took a player he wanted right before he was about to pick him, so he didn't want to take any chances. Is an 8th a big deal, well if Higgins pans out, we will not remember the 8th, but if not, then it's a wasted pick.
Then he traded our 3rd round for Berezin. Bad move there. With no Koivu and Audette, I guess he figured he needed to get some scoring help, but overpaid in doing so.
Next he traded our 4th and 5th rounders to move up a few spots (99th overall) and get Michael Lambert. Why did he do this? well he must have liked Lambert a lot, who was rated to go much higher in the 2nd or 3rd, so Savard took a gamble and gave up our 5th to make sure he got his man. Again, if Lambert does well, then the 5th isn't so bad, but if he flops, then its a wasted pick. So far Lambert is near the top of the league in goals (20), but it's way to early to tell.
So that's 1 3rd, 2 8th rounders and a 5th to get Dackell, Higgins, Berezin and Lambert.
'03 Well '03 is still 6 months away, but he's made some moves already. He traded prospect Chris Dyment for the Wild's 5th this year. Then he traded Asham and our 5th for Chow. Yuck. IMO his worst move, but if Chow scored anywhere near his 22 of last year, its not so bad, but he's on pace for halft that, so bad move. Then he traded our 7th for Blouin. Not a whole lot of reasons why, but he's a replacement for Odjick who wont be back. Minor move.
So that's 1 5th coming this way, and another 5th + 7th for Chow and Blouin.
'04 Far away still, but he traded Berezin to the Hawks for their 4th rounder. Extra 4th for Berezin. Good move there.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 17, 2002 0:28:26 GMT -5
Not to beat this to death, but here's what it breaks down to.
He's traded away, 1 2nd, 1 3rd, 1 4th, 2 5th's, 1 7th, and 2 8th's.
He's added, 1 1st, 1 4th, and 1 5th.
So that's 8 picks he's moved, and 3 he's added, so that's 5 picks over 4 drafts ('01-'04).
Breaks down to 1 3rd, 2 5th's, and later picks 1 7th and 2 8th's. The later picks don't bother me (they got us Blouin, Higgins and Dackell). But that 3rd was the best of the bunch, and 2 5th's could be decent picks, but we will never know.
So in short, I dont see Savard as someone who trades away prime picks, with the exception of 1 3rd round pick in a weak draft. I can live with that, but I wouldn't consider Savard someone who trades good picks away.
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Dec 17, 2002 9:46:17 GMT -5
I think that my answer would change depending on the situation we are in. Right now, I think that we could use key players with potention (Ference, Bulis). Our farm is already one of the best in the league. Do we need to stockpile them right now? I don't disagree that good prospects in the minors give us ammo to land quality guys in the bigs. Picks are never a bad thing to get. But right now, we need a solid defenseman. (ie, Ference) 2 years ago, if you would have asked the same question, I would have said picks, definitely. But for now, lets get some good potential players to fill in the gaps. And the gaps on defense are pretty big. Cheers, TheHabsfan
|
|