|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 6, 2002 18:17:11 GMT -5
According to The Hockey News Bucks and Pucks issue.
1) NY Rangers: $69,177,085 2) Detroit: $68,005,506 3) St. Louis: $63,100,000 4) Dallas: $61,685,169 5) Colorado: $60,070,926 6) Philadelphia: $56,045,833 7) Toronto: $54,329,200 8) New Jersey: $52,372,626 9) Washington: $50,677,458
10) Montreal: $48,647,360
11) San Jose: $47,760,000 12) Chicago: $44,525,000 13) Phoenix: $44,341,775 14) Los Angeles: $43,317,434 15) NY Islanders: $41,690,935 16) Carolina: $39,198,787 17) Anaheim: $39,004,500 18) Boston: $37,325,00 19) Calgary: $33,272,500 20) Florida: $32,743,000
21) Vancouver: $31,825,000 22) Pittsburgh: $31,159,500 23) Buffalo: $31,079,166 24) Edmonton: $30,931,100 25) Ottawa: $30,315,000 26) Tampa Bay: $28,585,439 27) Columbus: $28,212,500 28) Atlanta: $25,985,000 29) Nashville: $25,242,500 30) Minnesota: $20,491,250
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 6, 2002 19:02:17 GMT -5
Thanks for that!
Let's see teams with lower payrolls than us and are, IMO, much better:
Los Angeles San Jose Carolina Islanders when healthy Vancouver
anyone still thinking Savard did a great job? our payroll has increased by a little more than 50% since the Reggie days(around 30-32). It's kind of easy to go out and add ''depth'' when you have so much $$ available
Like Doc said, we are the worst team when it comes to quality/$$ ratio
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2002 19:10:07 GMT -5
Look at what Jacques Lemaire is doing with that botton-of-the-league payroll. This guy is the standard by which other coaches should be judged.
And I still like the product Ottawa is icing for the dough they're forking out as well. Their future looks extremely bright with the youngsters they have currently on the club, and in their system.
Heck, check out the product the Bruins have now and they're $11 million below us.
Nice post indeed mon chum. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 6, 2002 19:14:49 GMT -5
oh god and I forgot Ottawa, Minnesota, Tampa and Pittsburgh(so far)
I hate seeing such a high payroll go to waste. 2 legit contenders in SJ and LA have lower payroll than us.
A team with OWEN NOLAN, TEEMU SELANNE, VINCENT DAMPHOUSSSE, MIKE RICCI, PATRICK MARLEAU AND MIKE RATHJE has a lower payroll than we do.
Or the Kings with an Allison, a Palffy and a Deadmarsh, 3 legit stars have a lower payroll than we do
It should go down soon as Hackett(almost 4 million), Gilmour(2 million) and maybe an Audette or Petrov are traded or retire. But still,we ain't getting enough bang for our buck IMO!
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 6, 2002 20:06:04 GMT -5
Thanks for that! Let's see teams with lower payrolls than us and are, IMO, much better: Los Angeles San Jose Carolina Islanders when healthy Vancouver anyone still thinking Savard did a great job? our payroll has increased by a little more than 50% since the Reggie days(around 30-32). It's kind of easy to go out and add ''depth'' when you have so much $$ available Like Doc said, we are the worst team when it comes to quality/$$ ratio I think Savard has done a good job. I personally hated seeing all them AHLers in our lineup. Reggie's payroll was low cause he traded away all the top players. As for the worst team when it comes to quality/ $ I vote the rangers. Of the 9 teams in front of us, rangers, stars, and caps didn't make the playoffs, so it goes to show money isn't the answer. If not for Houle giving Hackett such a fat contract, and Theo getting Vezina/MVP our team salary wounldn't be so high. Thats 8.9M between the 2. If we could trade Hack, then our salary drops 3.6M.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 6, 2002 20:12:46 GMT -5
I think Savard has done a good job. I personally hated seeing all them AHLers in our lineup. Reggie's payroll was low cause he traded away all the top players. I hated Reggie as well. But didn't Molson tell him to not spend more than 30 million on the payroll? How could I forget the Rangers Caps and Stars should make the playoffs this year.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 6, 2002 21:02:29 GMT -5
It's very good news that we have an owner that is ready to have the HABS on the top tier payroll wise (Molson was allways aiming for roughly the middle of the pack) .
It's just sad to see how all the money is burnt.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Nov 6, 2002 21:51:51 GMT -5
Add to the fact its going to be tough to move the smurfs. HFTO
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 6, 2002 21:55:00 GMT -5
what a shame...why didn't we have this money available when Recchi, Damphousse, Turgeon and company were still around...
bad timing.
Let's hope it's there in a few years if we are close to being contenders...
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 6, 2002 23:16:16 GMT -5
It's very good news that we have an owner that is ready to have the HABS on the top tier payroll wise (Molson was allways aiming for roughly the middle of the pack) . It's just sad to see how all the money is burnt. Well, getting from crap to being average meant spending money, and a lot of it. But I'm the first to agree a lot of it has been badly spent. Too many 3 million dollar players, not enoug 500K and 6+ million ones. Essentially, the lineup was set before camp even opened...
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 6, 2002 23:52:22 GMT -5
This is excellent news:
The core, so to speak, in 2004 will look something like this, with some increases estimated:
Koivu:...4,000,000 Theo:... 5,000,000 Garon:...1,000,000 Breez:.. 4,000,000 Rivet:....2,500,000 Souray:.2,000,000 Markov:.2,500,000 Hainsey:2,000,000 Dykhuis:1,500,000 Komi:.....1,500,000 Zed:.......2,500,000 Bulis:......1,500,000 Kilger:....1,500,000 Hossa.......750,000 Balej.........750,000 Plekanec...750,000 ------------------------- TOTAL: 33,750,000
That's 16 of the 23 roster spots. If you assume the payroll will rise to about 50,000,000 then that leaves about 16,000,000 for the balance of the payroll. Quintal, Audette, Juneau, Gilmour, Perreault and Hackett will be long gone (Quintal being the only challenge, possibly). We'll have two or three depth and fourth line guys at, say a million or so each, amd about 12,000,000 or so to add that piece or those pieces that will be needed to finish the puzzle.
The money that has been spent thus far is a lot, there's no question about it, but that's what you've got to do if you're determined to have experienced NHL talent in there to hold the fort until the reinforcements arrive. And for all you Manny Malhotra fans out there, take Manny and put him on a roster like Atlanta's and he wouldn't look so good, I assure you. If you put together a team of stalled or dissappointing prospects you can kiss playoff revenue goodbye and you run the risk of having a losing tradition for guys like Komisarek and Hainsey to step into. And this is not Minnesota. Montreal isn't interested in hearing about rebuilding. We might be, but we don't buy seasons tickets.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 7, 2002 0:45:13 GMT -5
Great Post JV.
This is just the situation we find ourselves in because of the transition from crap to greatness. We've picked up alot of middle of the road talent's who are overpaid to ice a competive team.
Here's what concern's me. It's more than obvious we are not getting our money's worth for the on ice product. There is a theory that i agree with that the payroll's going to remain around here but the roster spot's will eventually be filled with better player's as the short term stop gap's to keep us competitive are removed and the younger more skilled guy's move up and replace them. Now to the point that concern's me. I'm beginning to doubt the abilities of AS more and more to get us over the hump. Things like Blouin coming in no it doesn't affect payroll but is to me a completely senseless move considering we have O'dette who could provide the very same thing. Thing's like Cerk this summer. Why, now it's a toss up who get's in the lineup between him and Audette. The thing was we needed scoring well, in the playoff's saku zed and Audette we're providing plenty. The need wasn't as great as we may have suspected.
The next 6 months to a year will greatly detemine wether savard is still steering the good ship hab to port or just keeping the sails up when it's windy while leaving the motor's off on a clear day.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 7, 2002 1:40:03 GMT -5
I like Czerkawski, so I don't mind seeing him and Audette battle for one spot. Admittedly, Audette may be difficult to move but (as I've said before) we don't have to get much of anything back for him.
On the Blouin thing, it's worth remembering that back in August everybody fully expected Odjick to be on the team, though not everybody was happy about it. Odette is not ready, and may never be ready. He was flat-out demolished by Bonvie in Ottawa during the pre-season (a beating that Quintal avenged when they played again a few nights later in Montreal). So I don't think Odette was the answer as a fighter and he's less of a hitter than Blouin. I actually liked Blouin's game in Carolina, brief though it was, and I wasn't so sure he deserved to be tossed for intent to injure.
We are definitely not getting our money's worth, and that has to change. Part of it has to do with the fact that the roster is not settled, which is not a good thing. I think it effects the players more than they'll admit. There are only 10 or 12 guys who're sure they'll be playing and the rest are on edge because of the uncertainty. Czerk, Audette, Kilger, Hainsey, etc have all been sat. So has Theodore. Gilmour's unhappy playing on the left wing and has said publically that it's "only temporary", but in the back of his mind he's not so sure. With Juneau playing center there's only one spot for Perreault, Ribeiro and Gilmour that makes sense and he knows it. Anyway, cause and effect are often difficult to sort out, and this situation is no different: either the roster's not settled because they're not performing or they're not performing because the roster's not settled. Go figure. It could just as easily be the one or the other. It's certainly no wild stretch to imagine that if Hackett were moved Theo might settle down and that if Audette were moved Czerk would be more comfortable. I don't know. I do think that things will improve, and that having fewer bodies would help somewhat. But I don't think that's the whole answer. A lot of it, as I've said elsewhere, has to do with coaching.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 8:59:17 GMT -5
This is excellent news: The core, so to speak, in 2004 will look something like this, with some increases estimated: Koivu:...4,000,000 Theo:... 5,000,000 Garon:...1,000,000 Breez:.. 4,000,000 Rivet:....2,500,000 Souray:.2,000,000 Markov:.2,500,000 Hainsey:2,000,000 Dykhuis:1,500,000 Komi:.....1,500,000 Zed:.......2,500,000 Bulis:......1,500,000 Kilger:....1,500,000 Hossa.......750,000 Balej.........750,000 Plekanec...750,000 ------------------------- TOTAL: 33,750,000 That's 16 of the 23 roster spots. If you assume the payroll will rise to about 50,000,000 then that leaves about 16,000,000 for the balance of the payroll. Quintal, Audette, Juneau, Gilmour, Perreault and Hackett will be long gone (Quintal being the only challenge, possibly). We'll have two or three depth and fourth line guys at, say a million or so each, amd about 12,000,000 or so to add that piece or those pieces that will be needed to finish the puzzle. Nice work, but not too be picky, Theodore will be at 6(if you are talking 2004-05). Plus Audette will still be around if we can't dump in(signed until 2004-05) But 12 million to play with sounds potentially great. Say we get that 2nd line big center. We still have plenty of money left to get another forward, another D,etc Then you have: Zed-Koivu-big forward picked up Perezhogin(I think he'll be there)-big center-Balej Bulis-Plekanec-Hossa Kilger on a 4th line with other tough players Souray-Brisebois Markov-Komisarek Hainsey-Rivet Of course all speculation and hoping the prospects pan out.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 9:02:17 GMT -5
Great Post JV. are removed and the younger more skilled guy's move up and replace them. Now to the point that concern's me. I'm beginning to doubt the abilities of AS more and more to get us over the hump. Things like Blouin coming in no it doesn't affect payroll but is to me a completely senseless move considering we have O'dette who could provide the very same thing. Thing's like Cerk this summer. Why, now it's a toss up who get's in the lineup between him and Audette. The thing was we needed scoring well, in the playoff's saku zed and Audette we're providing plenty. The need wasn't as great as we may have suspected. I agree..before the Chow move alot of us though we had a decent offence. Not a great one, but probably good enough to make the playoffs again. I mean is: Hossa(or Bulis)-Koivu-Audette Zednik-Perreault-Petrov That much worse than what we have now? Now, the situation has brought all kinds of disertion in the dressing room and created a saga the media has jumped on...
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 7, 2002 9:12:20 GMT -5
Koivu:...4,000,000 Theo:... 5,000,000 Garon:...1,000,000 Breez:.. 4,000,000 Rivet:....2,500,000 Souray:.2,000,000 Markov:.2,500,000 Hainsey:2,000,000 Dykhuis:1,500,000 Komi:.....1,500,000 Zed:.......2,500,000 Bulis:......1,500,000 Kilger:....1,500,000 Hossa.......750,000 Balej.........750,000 Plekanec...750,000 ------------------------- TOTAL: 33,750,000 And for all you Manny Malhotra fans out there, take Manny and put him on a roster like Atlanta's and he wouldn't look so good, I assure you. If you put together a team of stalled or dissappointing prospects you can kiss playoff revenue goodbye and you run the risk of having a losing tradition for guys like Komisarek and Hainsey to step into. And this is not Minnesota. Montreal isn't interested in hearing about rebuilding. We might be, but we don't buy seasons tickets. Well, that's assuming a lot. First assumption is that Garon is still around. From what I understand, if he doesn't play 12 games this year - NHL games - he becomes a Group VI UFA. And with Theodore in front of him, there won't be much reason for him to stick around. And with both Theodore and Hackett in front of him, he ain't going to get those 12 games. The second assumption is that all three of Hossa, Plekanec and Balej make the team. Or indeed, make the NHL. In a combined 30 games in the AHL this year, on a pretty strong team, the three of them have combined for 6 goals. Logic, or even statistics, would bet on at least one of them, if not two, not making the team. The final assumption is that Andre Savard is following the same plan. Most people here last year thought Arron Asham was a significant part of the future. Turns out, he wasn't. Who knows what trades Savard will make? What if he trades Markov? Or Bulis? Or Hainsey? We think he won't, but that's just an assumption. As for the Malhotra potshot, you are totally missing the point. He isn't a stalled or disappointing prospect, he is a legitimate NHLer who hasn't lived up to expectations. Huge difference. Huge. Manny Malhotra could play on our team tomorrow. No problem. Stick him on a 3rd or 4th line, and there would be no complaining whatsoever. None. In no way, shape or form, would he embarrass us out there. You know that, and I know that. My complaint with the non-Malhotra acquisition has ALWAYS been what we got instead, in return for what we gave up. Asset management. We gave up a 27 goal scorer in Sergie Zholtok to get Chad Kilger, and most people think that was a brilliant, exceptional deal that made our team better in the short term, and in the long term. And that was for a 3rd liner, 4th liner, healthy scratch. We traded Martin Rucinsky for... well... a Martin Rucinsky clone. Is this team better with Audette in the stands, and Lindsay on the 4th line, than it would have been with Lindsay in the stands, and Malhotra on the 4th line? I have always said that Malhotra would fit in perfectly with the type of team I would build, or try to build, if I was GM. He's big, he's fast, he hits, he's got good character, and most importantly, he is a proven NHLer. I have no interest in Rico Fata, or Daniel Tzkachuk, or Marty Reasoner. I want guys who can play, and who have upside. Like Malhotra. Worst case scenario with Malhotra, is that we would have had another Chad Kilger clone. Would that have been so bad? Guys like Matt Bradley, or Erik Rasmussen, or Brad Isbister, or Manny Malhotra, these guys can all play in the NHL. For some of them, as we saw with Malhotra, the price to get them would have been fairly cheap. Its not rebuilding, its getting younger. Its using your assets wisely. Some people, like PTH, like myself, saw the Audette acquisition, and saw that it was at best an extremely short term acquisition, and at worst, a long-term nightmare. He is NOT, as most people claim, a 30 goal scorer. He averages, for a variety of reasons, less goals than Rucinsky does. Trade wise, following a 30 goal season, he was dealt for Kamil Piros (yes, THAT Kamil Piros) and a 4th. His value was not increasing, and we aren't going to flip him and make the team better. So I really didn't see the point of making the deal. The short term help was debatable, and long term, we would have been much better off dealing for a Malhotra style player. You say that people won't tolerate rebuilding, and that's probably true, but we weren't dealing Saku Koivu for a package of picks. It was the much hated Martin Rucinsky. Everyone, including the season ticket holders, would either have loved the deal (the hard core internet fans) or the at the very least, not cared (the blaise, casual fan). Most would have just been happy Rucinsky was gone, if they even noticed. So in that case, why not swing for the fences? Deals like that don't hurt us in the short term, and they can only help us in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 7, 2002 14:31:47 GMT -5
The projection was for 2004, not 2003. So no, it's not (based on what I've seen) at all farfetched to think that all three of those guys will be on the team by then, and that the majority of the guys I listed will be gone. Lots of folks are fond of saying Savard is stuck, but I see things transitioning nicely into 2004. A couple of challenges, no question, but nothing terrifying. In any event , it wasn't so much about the particular personnel involved as the likely payroll. We will have three or four younger guys on the payroll with lower salaries, whatever combination of Plekanec, Higgins, Hossa, Balej and Komisarek you want to use. I've seen enough of Balej, Hossa and Komisarek to feel pretty sure they'll crack the roster within two years.
As for Malhotra, well his hands aren't any better than Chad Kilger, who for whatever reason isn't even dressing these days. Don't get me wrong, I would've favored getting him if possible back then, but I understood what Savard's thinking was and it doesn't bother me at all.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 7, 2002 14:32:52 GMT -5
Well, that's assuming a lot. First assumption is that Garon is still around. From what I understand, if he doesn't play 12 games this year - NHL games - he becomes a Group VI UFA. And with Theodore in front of him, there won't be much reason for him to stick around. And with both Theodore and Hackett in front of him, he ain't going to get those 12 games. The second assumption is that all three of Hossa, Plekanec and Balej make the team. Or indeed, make the NHL. In a combined 30 games in the AHL this year, on a pretty strong team, the three of them have combined for 6 goals. Logic, or even statistics, would bet on at least one of them, if not two, not making the team. As for the Malhotra potshot, you are totally missing the point. He isn't a stalled or disappointing prospect, he is a legitimate NHLer who hasn't lived up to expectations. Huge difference. Huge. Manny Malhotra could play on our team tomorrow. No problem. Stick him on a 3rd or 4th line, and there would be no complaining whatsoever. None. In no way, shape or form, would he embarrass us out there. You know that, and I know that. My complaint with the non-Malhotra acquisition has ALWAYS been what we got instead, in return for what we gave up. Asset management. We gave up a 27 goal scorer in Sergie Zholtok to get Chad Kilger, and most people think that was a brilliant, exceptional deal that made our team better in the short term, and in the long term. And that was for a 3rd liner, 4th liner, healthy scratch. We traded Martin Rucinsky for... well... a Martin Rucinsky clone. Is this team better with Audette in the stands, and Lindsay on the 4th line, than it would have been with Lindsay in the stands, and Malhotra on the 4th line? I have always said that Malhotra would fit in perfectly with the type of team I would build, or try to build, if I was GM. He's big, he's fast, he hits, he's got good character, and most importantly, he is a proven NHLer. I have no interest in Rico Fata, or Daniel Tzkachuk, or Marty Reasoner. I want guys who can play, and who have upside. Like Malhotra. Worst case scenario with Malhotra, is that we would have had another Chad Kilger clone. Would that have been so bad? Guys like Matt Bradley, or Erik Rasmussen, or Brad Isbister, or Manny Malhotra, these guys can all play in the NHL. For some of them, as we saw with Malhotra, the price to get them would have been fairly cheap. Its not rebuilding, its getting younger. Its using your assets wisely. Some people, like PTH, like myself, saw the Audette acquisition, and saw that it was at best an extremely short term acquisition, and at worst, a long-term nightmare. He is NOT, as most people claim, a 30 goal scorer. He averages, for a variety of reasons, less goals than Rucinsky does. Trade wise, following a 30 goal season, he was dealt for Kamil Piros (yes, THAT Kamil Piros) and a 4th. His value was not increasing, and we aren't going to flip him and make the team better. So I really didn't see the point of making the deal. The short term help was debatable, and long term, we would have been much better off dealing for a Malhotra style player. You say that people won't tolerate rebuilding, and that's probably true, but we weren't dealing Saku Koivu for a package of picks. It was the much hated Martin Rucinsky. Everyone, including the season ticket holders, would either have loved the deal (the hard core internet fans) or the at the very least, not cared (the blaise, casual fan). Most would have just been happy Rucinsky was gone, if they even noticed. So in that case, why not swing for the fences? Deals like that don't hurt us in the short term, and they can only help us in the long term. Well theres other factors to think about. Besides no one should of been complaining when Audette lead the team in goals in the playoffs. I liked the trade and still do. I was just glad to see Rosey go. I'm no fan of Malhotra, I don't think he's better then Kilger, but that just one persons opinion and means nothing. One thing thats being overlooked is Audette is a hometown boy. I heard a interview with Savard during the intermission of the bulldogs game last week, and he was talking about how its important to have hometown boys on the team, to help sell tickets. Don't quote me on what he said word for word, but it was something to that nature. If Audette started off the season with a bang, then nobody's complaining, but instead, he plays like crap, gets sent to the 4th line, then the press box (good move, I think) and now it's we should of done this or that. But to me its early, and I' wait a few weeks to see what happens. Maybe Audette picks it up, or gets traded, hopefully he gets a few on the PP and gets things going.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 7, 2002 15:41:02 GMT -5
Lots of folks are fond of saying Savard is stuck, but I see things transitioning nicely into 2004. I think this is also the case but the vast majority of us (myself Included ) are in a rush. Patience is a virtue and all the real contendor's like Detroit, San jose, Colorado and even a top end team like the sen's, Have taken the slow and steady approach to developing a strong nucleus of homegrown talent that has been supplemented by key free agent signing's and timely trade's. Savard is not in a fix right now just using GG's cash to keep us in the playoff's and have a winning environment while the nucleus grow's. Hopefully the kids will use guy's like Traverse and Quintal as the "what not to do's" The underlying theme to many poster's here IMO is we want to be winner's NOW and don't have the patience to wait for the development process to happen. You can't really blame us though considering the winning environment the vast majority of us are accostomed to with the exception of youngster's like Garbo, the kids have no patience anyway right Garb and MP
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 15:45:09 GMT -5
The underlying theme to many poster's here IMO is we want to be winner's NOW and don't have the patience to wait for the development process to happen. You can't really blame us though considering the winning environment the vast majority of us are accostomed to with the exception of youngster's like Garbo, the kids have no patience anyway right Garb and MP hey I have still seen more cups than any Leaf fan my age has ;D IMO, last year's playoff run could turn out to be...how could I put this...not a bad thing...but not exactly a great thing for this franchise. Instead of being a rebuilding franchise, now alot of our fans expect us to be contenders waaay too early IMO. It's like the success the Panthers had way too early. Sometimes it's better to go step by step in a building/rebuilding plan. Because sometimes when you win too early, expectations rise too quickly.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 7, 2002 16:41:47 GMT -5
I think this is also the case but the vast majority of us (myself Included ) are in a rush. .......... Wanting decent players long-term rather than short-term plugs isn't being in a rush, it's wanting sound management. AS is doing everything to get a decent team in a rush, and not doing everything to get a team that will be decent and better for the long run.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 7, 2002 16:45:33 GMT -5
Well theres other factors to think about. Besides no one should of been complaining when Audette lead the team in goals in the playoffs. I liked the trade and still do. I was just glad to see Rosey go. I'm no fan of Malhotra, I don't think he's better then Kilger, but that just one persons opinion and means nothing. One thing thats being overlooked is Audette is a hometown boy. I heard a interview with Savard during the intermission of the bulldogs game last week, and he was talking about how its important to have hometown boys on the team, to help sell tickets. Don't quote me on what he said word for word, but it was something to that nature. If Audette started off the season with a bang, then nobody's complaining, but instead, he plays like crap, gets sent to the 4th line, then the press box (good move, I think) and now it's we should of done this or that. But to me its early, and I' wait a few weeks to see what happens. Maybe Audette picks it up, or gets traded, hopefully he gets a few on the PP and gets things going. Well, some of us disliked the Audette acquisition from day 1, and while we were happy to see him score goals, that didn't make us like the deal any more. A bad deal can still get you some good things in return, but it's still a bad deal. And my opinion of the deal has been the same from the minute Rucinswky got dealt from Dallas, which was proof of a lingering suspicion that Rosie was worth more than an small, overpaid, soft, defensively suspect oft-injured smurf. How useful was Recchi over on Koivu's wing ? Without Recchi the Houle years would have been far worse - but it was still a bad deal. Audette is the same thing - sure he might have been useful, but you could have gotten a much better deal.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 7, 2002 16:49:16 GMT -5
In any event , it wasn't so much about the particular personnel involved as the likely payroll. We will have three or four younger guys on the payroll with lower salaries, whatever combination of Plekanec, Higgins, Hossa, Balej and Komisarek you want to use. I've seen enough of Balej, Hossa and Komisarek to feel pretty sure they'll crack the roster within two years.... But it only works out that way if the kids actually develop properly. No reason to be so sure that our Habs will prove any better in developing players in the AS era than in the Houle era. Anyhow, wouldn't your revised team look even better with a few guys already in place ? What if Malhotra was our 4th line center who could kill penalties and fill a stable role over a few years, and Asham a steady 3d line RW - it would make the transition period far easier. And I'm still not sure that AS is thinking of a serious transition.... I think a kid will have to knock down brick walls and outplay veterans in their prime to have a chance at anything...
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 7, 2002 17:36:48 GMT -5
Wanting decent players long-term rather than short-term plugs isn't being in a rush, it's wanting sound management. AS is doing everything to get a decent team in a rush, and not doing everything to get a team that will be decent and better for the long run. well PTH i'm not sure which side of the fence i'm on for this one on one hand it would be nice to see the youth eventually filling key spot's on the roster and the transition going that route so the short term stop gaps kinda make sense. Real long term fixes will prove costly if acquired through the trade route and i think that will ultimately cost us some of the existing talent (koivu, Zed) or some of our promising youth and that will also be a short term fix because it will not help us maintain any depth. I don't believe AS is in a rush to contention but was in a hurry to build respectability into the franchise so the youth would have a positive environment to step into. The other side of the coin is are they actually planning on transitioning in such a way or are we going to continue to add middle of the road talent's that just take ice time away from the kid's. Hopefully AS is planning on building through solid drafting while icing a competetive team in the meantime. I don't believe we can judge whitch way he's headed right at this time as the kid's are just starting to make an impression (markov, Hainsey, Ribiero) hopefully as these guy's develop we will see some of the overpaid vet's moved. This will take a few year's time (at least 3 or 4 ) If we see AS continuously acquiring useless people to fill roster spot's instead of allowing kids to take the spot's then it's time to panic. And I'm still not sure that AS is thinking of a serious transition.... I think a kid will have to knock down brick walls and outplay veterans in their prime to have a chance at anything... this is what scares me as well i tried to say the same kinda thing above hopefully this becomes less of a reality in the future.................................I really believe part of this has to do with MT playing the safety net of a vet instead of the apparent risk of a young rookie. Job defensive coaching if you will.
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 7, 2002 17:42:05 GMT -5
Well, some of us disliked the Audette acquisition from day 1, and while we were happy to see him score goals, that didn't make us like the deal any more. A bad deal can still get you some good things in return, but it's still a bad deal. And my opinion of the deal has been the same from the minute Rucinswky got dealt from Dallas, which was proof of a lingering suspicion that Rosie was worth more than an small, overpaid, soft, defensively suspect oft-injured smurf. How useful was Recchi over on Koivu's wing ? Without Recchi the Houle years would have been far worse - but it was still a bad deal. Audette is the same thing - sure he might have been useful, but you could have gotten a much better deal. I don't buy that for a minute. One can only guess if Savard could have gotten a better deal for Rosey/Brunet then Audette/VanAllen. But Brunet is an announcer now, and Rosey was an impending UFA that was on the downside of his career. Maybe he could have gotten better, maybe not, I can't say cause who knows what was offered. I think it was a minor deal to help our PP and scoring, when it seemed that Rosey would be lost UFA and Brunet couldn't stay healthy at all. Nothing lost there.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 17:46:40 GMT -5
For the past few months him and BadCo have been telling us Maholtra and Heisten would have been better than Audette...every argument possible won't make them change their opinion
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 7, 2002 18:20:09 GMT -5
I don't buy that for a minute. One can only guess if Savard could have gotten a better deal for Rosey/Brunet then Audette/VanAllen. But Brunet is an announcer now, and Rosey was an impending UFA that was on the downside of his career. Maybe he could have gotten better, maybe not, I can't say cause who knows what was offered. I think it was a minor deal to help our PP and scoring, when it seemed that Rosey would be lost UFA and Brunet couldn't stay healthy at all. Nothing lost there. Well, before Rosie was dealt I thought he might fetch us a 2nd round pick or so - ie, something of some value. When he got dealt for Audette I thought maybe I was wrong, and his value really wasn't all that high. Then Rosie gets dealt for a couple of decent kids, and I have to think that some kind of a decent offer was proposed to AS. It's AS's job to know what his players are worth and to get value for them - and IMO he failed to do so here. We can never know what was actually offered or discussed, but the fact that Rosie got dealt later on gives us a pretty darn good idea of his trade value. You can't really get a much better idea than that, after all. As to "nothing lost", I disagree. We could have gotten a decent kid for Rosie, and we didn't. Instead we got an overpaid veteran who didn't want to play here in the first place. Nothing lost ?? I think it's more like almost 12 million US $ lost that really could have been better used elsewhere. Instead of Chow, with an extra 3 million a season, we could have signed an Amonte.... Sometimes to rate a GM you have to extrapolate a bit from other happenings in the NHL, the only "sure thing" is what actually happens, but I think that looking at what happened after the Rosie deal, you can pretty much be sure that a Malhotra-caliber or at least a Malhotra-type of value was offered - or would have been if AS knew what he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 7, 2002 18:23:43 GMT -5
well PTH i'm not sure which side of the fence i'm on for this one on one hand it would be nice to see the youth eventually filling key spot's on the roster and the transition going that route so the short term stop gaps kinda make sense. Real long term fixes will prove costly if acquired through the trade route and i think that will ultimately cost us some of the existing talent (koivu, Zed) or some of our promising youth and that will also be a short term fix because it will not help us maintain any depth. I don't believe AS is in a rush to contention but was in a hurry to build respectability into the franchise so the youth would have a positive environment to step into. It's clear that AS had to get some better players around the team, but I wonder if he needed such a surplus of highly paid veterans. Would Malhotra, Ward and DescĂ´teaux have been all that much worse than Rosie/Audette, Simpson/Lindsay and Quintal ? I think not. I'm not worried about veterans.... we can have plenty of maginal NHL guys to push the kids, it's when a kid has to outplay a 3 million dollar veteran to play that I get annoyed, since the kids has to be more than just kinda better to make the team. Well, if MT plays a kid ahead of an expensive veteran, he makes his boss look bad - which is a good way of getting fired, so yeah, I guess it is defensive coaching.
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Nov 7, 2002 18:36:10 GMT -5
You can't blame Savard for doing what he thought best and that was to get this team into the playoffs ASAP. I am sure he felt a tremendous amount of pressure to make an impression on his new owner. The problem being he now has raised the expectations of everyone including I'm sure Mr.Gillet but in the process it looks as if he has painted himself into a corner. The question is can he make the transition PTH speaks of without taking two steps back? HFTO
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 7, 2002 18:41:41 GMT -5
No reason to be so sure that our Habs will prove any better in developing players in the AS era than in the Houle era.
Uhhhh, there's lots of reasons to be confident including, like, the fact that these guys can all skate.
Anyhow, wouldn't your revised team look even better with a few guys already in place ? What if Malhotra was our 4th line center who could kill penalties and fill a stable role over a few years, and Asham a steady 3d line RW - it would make the transition period far easier.
Yeah, that's true, but that's "my team". I would be happy with two or three young guys on the roster like Malhotra and Asham, and so would you, but as I've said countless times, we the hardcore hockey fans who know the names of up to 20 or more guys in the Habs system and actually talk (sometimes at length) about what's going on off the ice as well as on it, we don't buy a lot of season's tickets or corporate boxes. I love watching AHL and junior hockey, and in fact I'll be at the Bell center on Friday to see the Rocket take on Hull. And if I had $435,000 in my chequing account I wouldn't hesitate to drop $20,000 on some tickets (like 4 of them in section 102). But I don't really count in the discussions at the managerial level about what the short-term goals of the team should be and how they should be balanced with the long-term ones. So they made a decision based on hockey and business considerations, so what's new? They didn't have to give up anything for the future in order to add Audette at a time when they needed a right shot and some scoring punch. Malhotra would have been the better acquisition for the long term (assuming it was possible), but you can't blame Savard and Gillete for trying to help the team reach the playoffs. And by the way, the thing that will make the transition period easier is the quality and readiness of the guys coming up.
And I'm still not sure that AS is thinking of a serious transition.... I think a kid will have to knock down brick walls and outplay veterans in their prime to have a chance at anything...
You wait. Next year, Hainsey is Markov and Komisarek is Hainsey. Next year, Hossa will be ready. The year after that, we'll see one or both of Balej and Plekanec, if we don't see them sooner. The year after that, guys like Higgins will be coming up. You keep measuring the resistance our prospects recieve at the pro level by looking at Ward, Chouinard, Ribeiro and other guys who don't skate well That's where your analysis runs off the rails, imo. The veterans that will be leaving the fold over the next two years will leave space behind them. Everything Savard's done and said to date suggests that when he looks at Hamilton he sees the future. He's not growing guys down there to trade them for cast-offs, discontents and second-tier scorers, he's growing them so he won't have to look eslewhere nearly as much to assemble a core of talent each fall.
|
|