|
Post by Patty Roy on Dec 12, 2002 19:53:15 GMT -5
Word is they just traded Rem Murray, Tomas Kloucek and a prospect for Mike Dunham.
Also the Rangers traded a conditional 2004 pick for Josh Green.
I'll post a link when one comes up.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 12, 2002 19:54:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Dec 12, 2002 19:57:06 GMT -5
it's the josh green thing that annoys me he's 6'4 212 a left winger and only 24 we don't need any left wingers with size though and for a conditional pick
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 12, 2002 19:58:11 GMT -5
and to think Patty wanted to traded Petrov for Green last summer
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Dec 12, 2002 19:58:12 GMT -5
Does this mean we could have had Kloucek for Hack? Not sure, but at the very least it means we could have had Kloucek for Hack and change... I will be really dissapointed in AS if it ever comes out that he turned down a similar deal. I would be more than willing to possibly sacrifice a few wins during the next few weeks to get some solid young talent like Kloucek for Hackett.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 12, 2002 19:58:36 GMT -5
Exactly...plus Kloucek is what we need on the left side..
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Dec 12, 2002 20:00:14 GMT -5
and to think Patty wanted to traded Petrov for Green last summer Ah, that's true...but at the same time my first choice was Ethan Moreau...and he's looked pretty darn good this season.
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Dec 12, 2002 20:32:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Dec 12, 2002 20:41:25 GMT -5
damn, the rags should have went for hack, if dunham was worth this, then we could have gotten even more for hackett, soon enough they'll see dunham isn't gonna take them anywhere other than the golf course. he's also a new yorker i believe, so that adds to his appeal in a trade to new york. this one pisses me off.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 12, 2002 21:09:46 GMT -5
Hackett is a stud and currently more valuable to the Hab's than any single player (well, maybe Mario) is to any other team. Hack is why we are flirting with .500 instead of sitting on the bottom looking up.
Hab's outshot.....Hab's win!
Who done it?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 12, 2002 21:43:37 GMT -5
Savard is in an admittedly tough spot. The team needs improvement in several areas and could go the 'trade Hackett' route if Theo had played to even 80% of his ability. While he's been imitating Andre Red Light, though, moving Hackett is very tough. Also, while the Rangers were an ideal trading partner, in order to make up for their improved chances with Hackett in goal, AS would have to almost rob them blind. Something along the lines of the deal that Ranger Ranchod spoofed. Yes it was overloaded in the Habs favour, but them's the breaks when you need a certain commodity badly. Sather obviously didn't need Hackett that badly. What does AS do? Just keep on truckin. Theo isn't back on his game yet, so moving Hack is still not likely. Also there's nothing to say Dunham is going to pan out. He's had a so-so year and Vokoun has beaten him out. Not exactly star material and if he doesn't turn it around, Sather still needs a goalie. And there are other teams out there that I believe aren't happy with their current goaltending. So there's still time. Let's just hope the Habs win often enough to ensure a playoff spot early and make Savard's decision at the trade deadline easier.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 12, 2002 22:21:25 GMT -5
It's hard to say if the Habs could have acquired Kloucek. There are circumstances that make Dunham more attractive.
He is 4 years younger than Hackett, He makes less( this is an educated guess) and he is not a UFA at season's end. All this conspired against Savard when he tried to sell Hackett to the Rangers. Dunham also has some track record in international hockey.
Who is left out there that needs a starting goalie?
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 12, 2002 22:28:11 GMT -5
Who is left out there that needs a starting goalie? I think that's about it, for the moment. If Hack is to be dealt, we'll have to wait for some team to lose their goalie long term to injury. Olaf Kolzig is currently out with a groin problem in Washington, and lord knows they could use a shake-up, but I don't think Kolzig is going to be gone for all that long... Oh well. That would have been a nice package for Hackett, but as you said, it probably wasn't on the table for Savard...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Dec 12, 2002 22:38:54 GMT -5
I don't like giving up Kloucek, but I can't fault Sather TOO much for this one. First off, it should be noted the Sather and the Rangers were recently informed, perhaps as early as today, that Richter is done for year. So, no matter what, they HAD to get a goalie.
Zidlicky I always liked, but it's taken him too long (2 yrs) to sign a damn contract and come over to NA, and being 25 and in Europe who knows if he'll ever show. Murray was great on the PK, but by no means a player that can't be replaced.
To me, the deal is basically Kloucek for Dunham. I wanted to keep Kloucek, see what he became, LOVED his first year in NY, but the guy has been injury-prone (not good for a physical dman). Sather must think that he won't become what his pre-injury self thought. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. I'd like to have found out with him as a Ranger (hate to see him be our next Norstrom) but if he knows something we don't know, then I can't fault him for that. Time will tell on him.
Dunham is a perfect fit for us. He's better than the alternatives that were presented to us (Hackett, Barrasso...) Sorry, but that's just the way I feel. Hackett's been DYNAMITE this year, and very key to the Habs, so right there his value is higher... but Dunham is younger, cheaper, and has better career numbers playing on terrible Nashville teams. His last 2 years in Nashville he was 21-21, and 23-24, with GAA of 2.28 and 2.61, Sv Pct of .923 and .906. He's struggled this year, definitely, but he's talented enough to rebound in a new situation. We've got him under contract through 2005, at which point Blackburn should be more than ready for the #1 job. He wouldn't be hard to move or play as back-up either.
Josh Green... who cares. Most likely just another bust, but whatever, if Sather can salvage something outta the guy then great.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Dec 12, 2002 22:42:48 GMT -5
I should clarify... when I say better than Hackett, that is marginally better.... we're not talking Andy Mood to Reggie Lemelin difference here, the guys are very close, comparable, I can see why others would feel Hackett is better..... I'd have no problem with Hackett tending my goal either, I just think Dunham is a little better, and a better fit. The saddest news of the day, to me, is that this likely means Richter's career is over. Was my favorite player for years, an idol of mine as a young goalie, and a great Ranger who bled Ranger blue. Many great years and memories with Richter... superb money goalie, and no one better on breakaways and penalty shots.
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Dec 12, 2002 23:25:18 GMT -5
i think this deal was made because of timing. the rangers need a goalie now, and i think they would have taken hackett over dunham if he was available. all rumours say that hackett is unavailable for the time being. unavailable unless the perfect deal came up, and i'm not quite sure if kloucek and murray would have been enough for savard to part ways with him at this time. i think savard wanted lundmark, and sather wasn't willing to part, so he made a deal that right now looks a little better to ranger fans, but i'm betting they miss the playoffs again and even though they'll never admit it they'll wish they had picked up hackett. i don't see age as a factor when they already have their future goalie in blackburn, who will in his day be a great tender. another factor must have been with hackett being a UFA at season's end... i'm not sure if dunham is or not?
there's no way i'll ever admit that dunham is a better goalie than hackett ;D
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 13, 2002 0:08:01 GMT -5
Well Dunham has been struggling this year, and he makes a good bit of money. 2.8M this year, then 3.3M then 3.8M or so (the last 2 might be off 100K or so). But its tough to give up the leader in save % to a team that we are fighting with for a playoff spot. What if we traded Hack and ended up losing a playoff spot to the rangers cause of it, nightmares and lots of lost sleep come to mind. Its a good deal for the rangers if Dunham gets back to his old form, but only time will tell. They still need help on the blueline, but so do we. As for Josh Green, he's big but his injuries much like Kloucheks make me neverous. I wonder if the Oilers will call up Jani Rita now?
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 13, 2002 1:18:05 GMT -5
Word is they just traded Rem Murray, Tomas Kloucek and a prospect for Mike Dunham. Also the Rangers traded a conditional 2004 pick for Josh Green. I'll post a link when one comes up. Ah well. Is Kloucek worth a shot at the playoffs ? Didn't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Dec 13, 2002 2:01:40 GMT -5
Agreed PTH.. if I'm the Habs, I don't take Kloucek for Hackett, not at present.
Matt, Dunham's locked up until 2005.
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Dec 13, 2002 2:06:31 GMT -5
well there's a great advantage for the rangers in this one, thanks for the info double R... just posted this message so everyone could stare in amazement of my new avatar, what a classic. red light in top form ;D haha
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Dec 13, 2002 2:44:47 GMT -5
Yeah, but I'd still rather spend an hour with my avatar than yours... no offence. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Vichab on Dec 13, 2002 3:03:27 GMT -5
This was posted on the other thread so i thought i'd transfer it here to keep everything together:
You knew it was coming with blackburn unable to deliver that as soon as richter was out for the season Slats would move. Poses two questions:
1) would you have traded Hack for what the rangers are giving? and
2) do you think Sather would have given those 3 for Hack?
Although i like murray and said in an earlier post he was one of the rangers who i thought could help us right now i'm not sure i would have done the deal given how well Hack is playing and that the rags are going to compete for our playoff position.
I have to believe that Slats was offering at least those 3 and AS wanted more. I think hack is better than Dunham. But Dun may not be an FA and has more of a future so it's possible a gm may have preferred Dunham for a long term. Except that i don't think Sather is looking to the future as if the Rags don't make the playoffs this year Slats is probably gone. With that payroll and you can't make the playoffs in 2 1/2 years it's time for a new gm. Knowing what Hack is capable of he could have got the Rags in the playoffs. Maybe that's why AS was holding out for more as that rags playoff position just might be ours.
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 13, 2002 3:37:14 GMT -5
I agree with 17; AS moving Hackett for the kind of return that he might have been able to get from NY (including this one) would have amounted to admitting that he was willing to write the season off. Just because Theo sucks right now. I don't think that he was in a position to do that. Theo has cost this team in more ways than one. Lost games plus lost opportunities to cash in on trading an outstanding Hackett and significantly improving the team all around. I am not happy with this kid.
As to Dunham being better than Hackett this year, well the evidence simply doesn't bear it out. It may come to pass but Dunham's play so far this season has simply been brutal. His Save % is marginally worse than Richter's and Blackburn's at .892. He ranked 36th of 41 goalies who had played 10 or more games, at least as of a couple of days ago. Hackett at .932 ranks #1.
That is a .04% difference per game. If you take the number of shot's allowed by the Rangers per game, 28.72 but let's say 29, that amounts to 1.16 goals difference per game. Now let's say Hackett comes down some, to .925, and Dunham recovers to .905, that's still a difference of .02% or .58 goals per game. The Rangers have 50 games left, assume that these guys would play in 35 of them, that would amount to a 20 goal difference in GA. Right now the Rangers GF minus GA total is negative 21.
I imagine that Sather has got all his fingers and toes crossed hoping that Dunham will experience a renaissance. If he improves his play somewhat to just OK or pretty good (say .90x or even .91x) that may be good enough to reach the playoffs this year given the weaknesses that all the teams scrambling for the last few play off spots in the East have. If that is Sather's goal I can understand it. Same for the following years (unless the Rangers somehow dramtically improve their defence and overall defensive play) while Dunham is on hand and Blackburn is presumably able to mature into a top golatender. But if Sather is seriously thinking that the Rangers will be a true Cup contender this season with Dunham, especially with the horrible defensive play of the team (at 29th out of 30, even worse than the Habs) all he is seriously doing is deluding himself.
A few numbers:
Hackett
Regular season:
1990/91 .88 Save % 22 years old 1991/92 .89 23 1992/93 .86 24 1993/94 .89 25 1994/95 .91 26 1995/96 .92 27 1996/97 .93 28 1997/98 .92 29 1998/99 .91 30 1999/00 .92 31 2000/01 .89 32 2001/02 .90 33 2002/03 .93 34
Playoffs:
1994/95 .91 1995/96 .84 1996/97 .87
Dunham
Regular Season:
1996/97 .91 24 years old 1997/98 .91 25 1998/99 .91 26 1999/00 .91 27 2000/01 .92 28 2001/02 .91 29 2002/03 .89 30
Playoffs:
none
So over the course of his career, during the regular season Hackett has had five seasons, counting this one, when he's played outstanding, ie at .920 or better. Dunham has had one. Of course Dunham is younger (by 4 years) as RR says so he could still blossom. But by Dunham's current age Hackett already had had three outstanding seasons. So my bet would be that he'll never develop into a better than an average to pretty good goalie. Which may be all that Sather is after anyway with Blackburn on hand.
Yes Dunham is cheaper at $2.8M vs $3.6M but, the way the Rangers throw money around, to worry about $800K when it comes to the position that is arguably the most critical to the team's playoff hopes just seems to me to be penny wise and pound foolish. In other words this should not be a determining factor. I would think of it this way:
- with the Rangers miserable defensive play goaltending may well make the difference of getting into the playoffs or not.
- the revenues generated from one Ranger's playoff game (admission, TV rights, radio rights, concessions) would make up for the $800,000 difference between Hackett's and Dunham's salary several times over.
As to playoff performance Hackett has not done well. Dunham we have no track record on; he's a complete mystery. But you need to get to the playoffs first and Hackett can do that. Dunham certainly has no advantage in the playoffs. At least Hackett has the experience and is having an incredibly hot year so he could conceivably better handle the pressure.
Interesting to think about.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 13, 2002 9:10:08 GMT -5
Savard is no fool. Hack would of put the stRangers in the playoffs. And if we missed out the last spot and they got in, he better have two really good prospects to show for it or we would start to gather wood for the funeral pyre.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 13, 2002 10:17:45 GMT -5
Well, the question is, how long do you think Theodore's slump is going to last? If Theodore gets shutouts in his next 3 starts, after having had his butt kicked as a little motivational tool, then Montreal will have missed an opportunity. Sure, Hackett is a great goalie, but I'll take Theodore in his top form over Hackett in his top form, any day of the week.
On the other hand, if you think Theodore is likely to struggle all year, then of course you need to hang onto Hackett, as Montreal can't really afford to lose out on the guaranteed $2 million per playoff game. Mind you, we may miss the playoffs with Hackett anyways...
Course, the flip side of that is, missing the playoffs would give Savard free license to blow up the roster and/or coaching staff, but that is a whole other debate...
Extremely tough call, and its no suprise Savard played it safe here (assuming the same offer was on the table for Hackett, which is a big assumption). Reminds me of a few years ago, when Houle was GM, and Hackett was single-handedly carrying the team towards the playoffs. Lots of talk then, too, of trading Hackett (to Philadelphia) but Houle held onto to him for the playoff run. We missed the playoffs, and many people ("paging Mplabbe, paging Mplabbe! ;D ) blamed Houle for missing that opportunity to get something decent for Hackett.
Time will tell.
Best case scenario, some other team, preferably in the West, loses their #1 goalie and offers up a Philadelphia-Oates package for him (top prospect, first, second, third round picks), and Jose Theodore regains his form. Hackett leads his Western team to the Stanley Cup, where they meet Theodore and the Canadiens. In one of the most thrilling displays of hockey in the history of the universe, Montreal wins the cup in the 7th game, overtime, on a penalty shot goal scored by Ron Hainsey. Every game of the series went to overtime, and finished 1-0. Hackett and Theodore share Playoff MVP awards, hockey ratings go through the roof worldwide, the NHL expands to Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hamilton, the NHLPA and NHL reach a fair and equitable labour agreement, and seeing how smoothly those negotiations went, all warfare on the planet ceases to exist, as warring nations adopt the Goodenow-Betteman negotiating philosophy. Peace on Earth reigns.
Worst case scenario, is that Theodore never really recovers, Hackett comes back down to Earth, or worse, gets injured, Montreal misses the playoffs, both Hackett and Garon walk as UFA's leaving Montreal with nothing, and nobody buys me any Christmas presents.
I would suspect that the real answer will lie somewhere inbetween.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 13, 2002 10:22:36 GMT -5
LOL @ BC ;D
I wonder if the Rangers were really interested in Hackett. Dunham is under contract for 2-3 more seasons and we all know Blackburn will need about that time(if not more) before taking over and becoming a bonafide number 1 goalie in the NHL. I mean if they got Hackett, that doesn't solve their problem next year or the year after.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Dec 13, 2002 12:56:33 GMT -5
- As to Dunham being better than Hackett this year, well the evidence simply doesn't bear it out. - So over the course of his career, during the regular season Hackett has had five seasons, counting this one, when he's played outstanding, ie at .920 or better. Dunham has had one. - Yes Dunham is cheaper at $2.8M vs $3.6M but, the way the Rangers throw money around, to worry about $800K when it comes to the position that is arguably the most critical to the team's playoff hopes just seems to me to be penny wise and pound foolish. In other words this should not be a determining factor. Point 1..... who said he was? point 2... Let's also acknowledge Dunham played for the Nashville Predators for the bulk of his career, while Hackett put up most of those .920 plus seasons on a much stronger Chicago team. point 3... who said it was a determining factor? It's a bonus, plus the fact that's locked up long term, but saving 800k was not the determining factor in the deal. Heck, if that's the determining factor in any team's deal that team shouldn't even be in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Dec 13, 2002 13:34:28 GMT -5
I think simply that Savard may have wanted different players that Sather was not wanting to give up. Also Rangers need a goalie for at least this year and next while Blackburn gains experience. This is a kid that could play for the world juniors still.
In Hackett he was getting a goalie with injuries the last few years and with no guranteen he would be there next fall.
Its a better deal for the Rangers
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Dec 14, 2002 7:22:41 GMT -5
Well RR, you raised the point, I didn't.
1) You said he was- "Dunham is better than the alternatives...Hackett, Barasso...." I simply analysed the point you made using the statistical evidence on hand and came to a different conclusion than you did. Nothing wrong in that. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Stats admittedly aren't all there is to it and I did note that Dunham might well prove me wrong.
2) I would tend to agree with you if I had listed GAA, which has as much to do with a team's defensive play as the goaltending. Save %, on the other hand, has a lot more to do with the goalie's skill and much less to do with the team in front of him. A goalie can have a mediocre GAA average, reflecting the team in front of him, and a very good Save %, reflecting his personal skill.
For example:
- Hackett's GAA is 2.39, 17th out of 42 goalies (not bad but not really good) who have played 10 or more games while his Save % is .931, 1st out of 42 goalies.
- Dunham's is 3.15, 35th out of 42 such goalies while his Save % is .892, 36th of 42. There is a pattern here.
- Furthermore, Nashville ranks 18th in GA in the League with 81 GA while the Habs rank 27th in the League in GA with 94 GA. In other words, if anything, Hackett has had a worse team defensively playing in front of him than Dunham this year yet still has a much better GAA and a dramatically better Save %.
I stand by my comments.
3) OK, I take your point, you did not say that it was a determining factor but then I never said that you did. Again you raised the point and I analyzed it and put forward how I would look at it. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. My point was that the idea of a bonus is kind of missing the point, which should be to get the best goaltender possible, especially when your team sucks defensively (so do the Habs), in order to maximize the team's chances of getting into the playoffs. Frankly, with the number of mistakes that Sather has made with that team on free agents and exhorbitant contracts, and with the goalie situation (relying on a kid who has potential but has been thrown to the lions without a chance to develop and a completely beat up vet who's now out for the year), his current move wouldn't leave me with a warm feeling, but that's just me. Our own GM has made a couple of questionable moves but he's a meer piker compared to Sather.
You are quite right, Dunham is tied up this year and the next two(?). Now if he plays really well this works well for the Rangers financially and otherwise and I take your point. If he doesn't pan out, however, then you're tied into a 3 year contract wasting your money. We Habs fans know all about that, trust me.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Dec 14, 2002 8:19:11 GMT -5
BC, If you're last scenario holds true you will be held personally responsible for have even put that in writing. The way things have gone we may just be left holding an empty bag. Another worst case scenario MT is given a five-year extension. HFTO
|
|