|
Post by Viper on Nov 7, 2002 18:47:20 GMT -5
I hope your right JV that's all i'll say because if your not we are gonna end up another TML. Good but not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 7, 2002 18:51:44 GMT -5
I hope your right JV that's all i'll say because if your not we are gonna end up another TML. Good but not good enough. Dittto that. This is where Savard makes or breaks his career as a GM. If things unfold as JV says they will, then Savard jumps into the Lou Lamerello/Dean Lombardi class of GM. If they don't, and we look more like the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Carolina Hurricanes than the Sharks or Devils, then Savard gets stuck in the Pat Quinn class - okay, but not quite good enough. Here's hoping. I've just been dying to move that B (plas or minus, I can never remember) up into the A+ category! ;D
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 7, 2002 19:03:07 GMT -5
So when have I ever been wrong?
Savard is a hawk. Conservative. His career was all about grit and determination. He'll get us there. Remember, this is the guy who told you when the wings were down two to the canucks that they'd win in six. Not seven. Six. This is the guy who told you last year when Dudley lost his mind that we shoulda busted the bank to get Lecavalier. I remember the post, it was "call me crazy", and a lot of you did.
When will you ever learn, you guys, that I'm Johhnnnnnnnnny.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 19:04:58 GMT -5
No need to worry, we won't become the Leafs...
Our farm system is much better than theirs(not my opinion...plenty of people agree with me on this I am sure). We have a 26 year old MVP/Vezina winner in goal. Our top goal scorer is 26 years old, our top center is 27 years old, our best d-man right now is 23 years old, all of our prospects are only 19-20-21 years old so chances are they'll be coming in while the 26-27 year olds are still solid.
What do the Leafs have? best goal scorer is what? 34? top center is 31, their power forward is 36 years old and injured, goalie is 37...only really young guys are Antropov, Kaberle and Colaiacovo. They have like one good prospect(Boyes).
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 19:05:53 GMT -5
Savard is a hawk. Conservative. His career was all about grit and determination. He'll get us there. Remember, this is the guy who told you when the wings were down two to the canucks that they'd win in six. Not seven. Six. This is the guy who told you last year when Dudley lost his mind that we shoulda busted the bank to get Lecavalier. I remember the post, it was "call me crazy", and a lot of you did. When will you ever learn, you guys, that I'm Johhnnnnnnnnny. LOL at the Wings thing but I was also there saying we should have gone after Lecavalier so don't say you were the only one lol.
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Nov 7, 2002 19:06:57 GMT -5
MP It's not that we may or may not be better than TO it's that we may end up close but not close enough like the leaf's that's the point we make.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 19:08:16 GMT -5
MP It's not that we may or may not be better than TO it's that we may end up close but not close enough like the leaf's that's the point we make. my bad I thought you were talking about the current Maple Laffs. Not the gritty team that came close the last few years and never made the big deal to get them the cup(bah, they are the Laffs, they would have lost to Detroit or Colorado anyways :-) )
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 7, 2002 22:35:02 GMT -5
MP.
You stated that the Hab's have the most millionaires. I assume you meant players and not fans?
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 7, 2002 22:35:53 GMT -5
MP. You stated that the Hab's have the most millionaires. I assume you meant players and not fans? yes..lol
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 8, 2002 0:53:54 GMT -5
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. Well just cause you say it, doesn't mean it could have happened. You make it sound like we could of had Amonte at any time. Unless you are Amonte's agent and can tell me that he wanted to play here, but Savard just wouldn't hear of it, I'm sorry but I just dont see Amonte playing in Habland. This is how I see it, you said that you thought we might get something of value for Rosey like a 2nd. But others might not agree. I certainly never thought we could get anything for him, as he was impeding UFA, and was playing like total crap at the time. I guess I was just more happy to see Rosey gone, but I never expected anything of value in return, so getting Audette to help score some goals (which we really needed at that time, and still do) sounded like a good ideal to me. Also your basing the value of Rosey on a trade after wards and placing value on the kids that were traded for him. You might think that they are decent kids, but others might not, including Savard. But whats the point, cause it's neither hear nor there. My point is that your basing the value of the trade on your opinions, which may or may not be correct. No offence, but I'll go with Savard's plan then someone on an internet site. I mean your saying we "could have gotten something good for Rosey" just how do you know that? How could you know what offers were made to Savard or by Savard? Until then its tough to say what we could or could not of gotten outside the realm of speculations and opinions, which may or may not be correct.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Nov 8, 2002 1:24:39 GMT -5
Montreal,
In fact, Malhorta was shopped around by Sather and was close to waiver wire material. Apparently a huge disappointment to NYR.
A lot of these debates have been beaten to death around here and we are a bit worn down by them.
Would you believe we had over 130 posts and a couple of hundred thousand words on the pro's and con's of the Chris Dyment trade? Stick around and have some fun when we blow out and debate a subject until our butts start to fossilize.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 8, 2002 2:26:12 GMT -5
Well just cause you say it, doesn't mean it could have happened. You make it sound like we could of had Amonte at any time. Unless you are Amonte's agent and can tell me that he wanted to play here, but Savard just wouldn't hear of it, I'm sorry but I just dont see Amonte playing in Habland. This is how I see it, you said that you thought we might get something of value for Rosey like a 2nd. But others might not agree. I certainly never thought we could get anything for him, as he was impeding UFA, and was playing like total crap at the time. I guess I was just more happy to see Rosey gone, but I never expected anything of value in return, so getting Audette to help score some goals (which we really needed at that time, and still do) sounded like a good ideal to me. Also your basing the value of Rosey on a trade after wards and placing value on the kids that were traded for him. You might think that they are decent kids, but others might not, including Savard. But whats the point, cause it's neither hear nor there. My point is that your basing the value of the trade on your opinions, which may or may not be correct. No offence, but I'll go with Savard's plan then someone on an internet site. I mean your saying we "could have gotten something good for Rosey" just how do you know that? How could you know what offers were made to Savard or by Savard? Until then its tough to say what we could or could not of gotten outside the realm of speculations and opinions, which may or may not be correct. The voice of reason! Can I get a amen? You know, if you're building a team on a computer screen and all you're concerned with is adding guys who may be good two or three years down the road, then of course you deal Rosie for a pick or a prospect. Period. But if you're in the real world and your powerplay sucks, and you're not getting much at even strength either, and you have another front line scorer who's also on his way out (Savage), and you're in the hunt for a playoff spot, and the team's been out of the playoffs three years in a row (in Montreal!), and your captain is battling the evil one, and you're short on right-handed shots, and you have about 2,000 empty seats (on average), and you've got a very hot goaltender, and you've been drafting well anyway and keeping picks higher than a 4th, and you have confidence in those picks and the ones to come because you know a lot about assessing hockey talent, well then you happily move an unproductive and pending ufa (Rosie) for Donald Audette, a guy coming off a 34 goal season. Period. This talk about Savard opting for Audette as against Malhotra (assuming he or someone like him was available) because he doesn't know what he's doing is just nonsense. It's idle criticism by people who can casually dismiss the playoffs as neither here nor there because "we're in a rebuilding process". I can't stand that nonsense. Manny Malhotra! Like Savard missed the boat on the kind of player who we won't be able to get another of next year or the year after. Christ Plekanec and Higgins will end up being better than Manny Malhotra in three years! It's un-freaking-believable. I'll tell you what it is, it's that damn ignorance bug that's been going around. Every year at about this time...like clockwork.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 8, 2002 7:28:44 GMT -5
Well just cause you say it, doesn't mean it could have happened. You make it sound like we could of had Amonte at any time. Unless you are Amonte's agent and can tell me that he wanted to play here, but Savard just wouldn't hear of it, I'm sorry but I just dont see Amonte playing in Habland. This is how I see it, you said that you thought we might get something of value for Rosey like a 2nd. But others might not agree. I certainly never thought we could get anything for him, as he was impeding UFA, and was playing like total crap at the time. I guess I was just more happy to see Rosey gone, but I never expected anything of value in return, so getting Audette to help score some goals (which we really needed at that time, and still do) sounded like a good ideal to me. Also your basing the value of Rosey on a trade after wards and placing value on the kids that were traded for him. You might think that they are decent kids, but others might not, including Savard. But whats the point, cause it's neither hear nor there. My point is that your basing the value of the trade on your opinions, which may or may not be correct. No offence, but I'll go with Savard's plan then someone on an internet site. I mean your saying we "could have gotten something good for Rosey" just how do you know that? How could you know what offers were made to Savard or by Savard? Until then its tough to say what we could or could not of gotten outside the realm of speculations and opinions, which may or may not be correct. Amonte is just PTH's favorite example. While we of course don't know if Amonte would have come to Montreal PTH's point has always been that we have too many mediocre, 2nd tier players tying up salary, and not enough higher, upper end players. Take away two $3 million players (say Audette and Czerkawski) and add Amonte, or Guerin, or Selanne or whoever, and would this team be better? We have the 10th highest payroll in the league (original point of this thread) and yet we have one star player (Theodore) and a team that could very easily miss the playoffs. As for using his opinion to make his point, isn't that what this board is for? Sure, we could all just blindly accept Savard's plan, and just assume he couldn't have got better, but what fun would that have been? If we are just going to meekly accept everything Savard does as being perfect, and good, and right, then heck, we might as well be Leaf fans... ;D
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 8, 2002 7:45:28 GMT -5
The voice of reason! Can I get a amen? You know, if you're building a team on a computer screen and all you're concerned with is adding guys who may be good two or three years down the road, then of course you deal Rosie for a pick or a prospect. Period. But if you're in the real world and your powerplay sucks, and you're not getting much at even strength either, and you have another front line scorer who's also on his way out (Savage), and you're in the hunt for a playoff spot, and the team's been out of the playoffs three years in a row (in Montreal!), and your captain is battling the evil one, and you're short on right-handed shots, and you have about 2,000 empty seats (on average), and you've got a very hot goaltender, and you've been drafting well anyway and keeping picks higher than a 4th, and you have confidence in those picks and the ones to come because you know a lot about assessing hockey talent, well then you happily move an unproductive and pending ufa (Rosie) for Donald Audette, a guy coming off a 34 goal season. Period. This talk about Savard opting for Audette as against Malhotra (assuming he or someone like him was available) because he doesn't know what he's doing is just nonsense. It's idle criticism by people who can casually dismiss the playoffs as neither here nor there because "we're in a rebuilding process". I can't stand that nonsense. Manny Malhotra! Like Savard missed the boat on the kind of player who we won't be able to get another of next year or the year after. Christ Plekanec and Higgins will end up being better than Manny Malhotra in three years! It's un-freaking-believable. I'll tell you what it is, it's that damn ignorance bug that's been going around. Every year at about this time...like clockwork. You are still missing the point. Its Donald Audette that we acquired. Audette has averaged something like 21 goals a season over the last 8 years!! He is weak defensively, openly feuds with coaches (something he did in both Dallas and Buffalo) and has zero concept of defence. And he's almost proud of that. He's Alexie Selivanov, only shorter, older and more expensive. The fact that no other team in the league wants him now, that he was shipped out of Dallas after 10 games, and that Savard tried to shop him even quicker than that should tell you something. He has never been traded for anything. In fact, I would argue that Rucinsky was the best player he has ever been traded for. I don't criticize the Berezin acquisition, because even though it failed miserably, it was a worthwhile gamble. Berezin IS a proven scorer, and he brought an element to this team that was sorely missing - game breaking speed, and the ability to back defenders up. Berezin fit into a team concept much better than Audette ever does. Berezin fits into a system much, much better than Audette does. Audette is a lone gun. So you can talk all you want about Koivu's cancer, and the lack of a right-handed shot, and his 34 goal season, and the need for the playoffs (and what happened to all those posts last year that said making the playoffs wasn't all that important to Savard last year - when I said not making the playoffs would be a failure for Savard, and you jumped all over me?) - you can talk all about those things, but they still aren't relevant in this case. Audette at best filled a very short term need. There were, and are, other people, that could have fit that need much better, in our opinions. Guys who may have been around for a while longer, who may have been cheaper, who may have much higher upside. And that's the point that was made from Day 1 after he was acquired. "Sure, " we said, "He may score a goal or two this year, but what do we do with him in 3 years, when he isn't producing, and we still have that big contract?" Right now, those arguments look valid. What do we do with him? Savard took an asset - Rucinsky - that as far as we could tell had some significant value around the league, and turned it into an asset that has little to no value around the league. Even if we assume that Plekanec and Higgins will be better than Malhotra (and that's just blind faith, really) what would be wrong with having all three of them? Then deal Maholtra, or Higgins, or whatever. Worst case scenario is they have the same value as Audette does now, only they are $3 million cheaper. Best case scenario is they all become valuable commodities. There was never any chance of Audette becoming a valuable commodity.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Nov 8, 2002 9:59:15 GMT -5
The point of BC's post, if we could get back to the point, is that we could be looking at minimal return on a top 10 payroll, and some of the payroll we acquired (Audette) was poor asset management. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Savard could have done better for Rucinsky instead of inheriting Audette at $3MM for the next 3 years.
But the only person to whom payroll matters is George Gillet. I think the average paying customer is sick of losing, wants to see a few playoff games, and isn't really concerned with the success/payroll ratio. Like we've discussed at length, Savard's strategy is pretty clear whether or not you agree with it. I'm sure he had a long discussion with GG and said: "look, I really think we have some good youngsters to rebuild this thing, but you know the natives are restless and we need to bring in some established NHL talent, but you know we'll have to overpay cause that's how it works, but trust me in 3 years we'll unload the veterans and we'll be able to spend the money productively to put us over the top". To which GG replied, "Word up, dude.
If Gillet has committed $$$ to building this team over the next 3 years, and he's on board with Savard's strategy of how to get there, then that's all that matters. If Audette and his $3MM payroll is REALLY going to choke this franchise of resources needed to make a run at a better player, then yes I'm very pissed off and it was a horrible trade. But I don't think that's the case. The $$ will be there when it's needed, IMO.
So we can argue all we want about whether or not we could have added a Manny Malhotra-type for the 3rd/4th line for cheap instead of Audette, but you know that's a pretty marginal argument, and won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 8, 2002 10:27:43 GMT -5
Montreal, In fact, Malhorta was shopped around by Sather and was close to waiver wire material. Apparently a huge disappointment to NYR. and where is Barrett Heisten?
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 8, 2002 12:12:43 GMT -5
Savard took an asset - Rucinsky - that as far as we could tell had some significant value around the league, and turned it into an asset that has little to no value around the league. Even if we assume that Plekanec and Higgins will be better than Malhotra (and that's just blind faith, really) what would be wrong with having all three of them? Then deal Maholtra, or Higgins, or whatever. Worst case scenario is they have the same value as Audette does now, only they are $3 million cheaper. Best case scenario is they all become valuable commodities.
"Significant value"? You must be joking. We would have moved him (and you would've too) for a 3rd or maybe a 4th rounder as the deadline approached. Malhotra was practically - if not literally-waiver wire stuff. The fact that he's a serviceable bottom 4 or so forward in Dallas doesn't impress me. But even then, it's beside the point -- the point that you miss, not me -- is that we didn't need a Manny Malhotra last year.
And as for jumping all over you when you said it would be a complete failure if we didn't crack the playoffs last year, you miss the point again. What I recognized was the legitimacy of the effort. I understood why they were compelled to make a push for it, which you in your ivory tower did not recognize or which you scoffed at as likely to fail and counter-productive in either case. You were all hot on the Phoenix Coyotes model (where are they now, with the bargain basement Tony Amonte who you, in your fantasy, say "might have come to Montreal"!) and wanted (self-importantly) to portray the playoff push as some sort of dangerous plan that could handicap the team for years to come. Chicken little, "the sky is falling because we have Audette rather than Manny or some other marginal prospect". And you're the guy who's been all pumped on bringing Jason Ward in as a power forward experiment -- shows what you know. My point last year was that they were doing it without giving up much of the future, if anything significant. You and PTH, stretching like yoga chicks to make your point, are reduced to pointing over and over again like harpies at Manny Malhotra as the symbol of how healthy the Habs could be if only you or some like-minded professor of hermeneutics had been in charge! It's pathetic.
And no it's not blind faith that one of Higgins or Plekanec will be a better centerman in three years, based on what I've read of Higgins and what I've seen of Plekanec. And given Savard's record I have a fair bit of confidence that when he picks Higgins 14th overall in the draft, that he's seen a fair bit too. By the way, how many times have you watched Malhotra play? Ever seen him except on TV? Is Malhotra the best you can do? Is there another poster boy out there you can think of?
And all the talk about having Higgins, Plekanec, AND Malhotra is so much idle chatter anyway in that it ignores the single most important factor in determining the choice between Malhotra and Audette (assuming it existed at all): the immediate needs of the team and the legitimacy for various reasons of making a serious effort to get into the playoffs! You live in a bubble!
And it doesn't matter if Audette has failed to turn into an asset of significant value, as you say. It doesn't matter. Manny Malhotra's not got significant value. He's worth a lot less than Chad Kilger, for cryin' out loud. For various reasons Audette's not easily tradeable right now, but the plan wasn't to get an asset of "signifcant value", but only to help the team in the short run and to be able if necessary to move him for some small return. But we don't have to make a "profit" on Audette, and had he not almost had his arm cut off it's very difficult to say that he wouldn't be sitting on a 25+ goal performance. That didn't happen. Now he's a tough nut to trade. That's life. Will he finish the the next three years in Montreal? Something tells me no. How much will we get for him? I don't know, but it really doesn't matter, because his playoff contribution last year, combined with whatever we do get for him (a 3rd or 4th rounder, say) is plenty to have gotten back for the "significant asset" you so laughingly describe Rucinsky as being.....Think! Rucinsky signed for less dough than Sergei Berezin! Rucinsky didn't have any serious interest from anyone until St. Louis caught the injury bug! Rucinsky, the UFA, signs for 1.7 million bucks a year! That's the "significant asset"?
Get a grip
"There was never any chance of Audette becoming a valuable commodity. "
Wow! We shoulda gone for the Malhotra thing. That was the ticket to the playoffs. That was the ticket to our future strength at center! That would've been an investment! That would have made sense! Maybe on your little ecran, dude, but not beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 8, 2002 13:02:12 GMT -5
"Significant value"? You must be joking. We would have moved him (and you would've too) for a 3rd or maybe a 4th rounder as the deadline approached. Malhotra was practically - if not literally-waiver wire stuff. The fact that he's a serviceable bottom 4 or so forward in Dallas doesn't impress me. But even then, it's beside the point -- the point that you miss, not me -- is that we didn't need a Manny Malhotra last year. And as for jumping all over you when you said it would be a complete failure if we didn't crack the playoffs last year, you miss the point again. What I recognized was the legitimacy of the effort. I understood why they were compelled to make a push for it, which you in your ivory tower did not recognize or which you scoffed at as likely to fail and counter-productive in either case. You were all hot on the Phoenix Coyotes model (where are they now, with the bargain basement Tony Amonte who you, in your fantasy, say "might have come to Montreal"!) and wanted (self-importantly) to portray the playoff push as some sort of dangerous plan that could handicap the team for years to come. Chicken little, "the sky is falling because we have Audette rather than Manny or some other marginal prospect". And you're the guy who's been all pumped on bringing Jason Ward in as a power forward experiment -- shows what you know. My point last year was that they were doing it without giving up much of the future, if anything significant. You and PTH, stretching like yoga chicks to make your point, are reduced to pointing over and over again like harpies at Manny Malhotra as the symbol of how healthy the Habs could be if only you or some like-minded professor of hermeneutics had been in charge! It's pathetic. And no it's not blind faith that one of Higgins or Plekanec will be a better centerman in three years, based on what I've read of Higgins and what I've seen of Plekanec. And given Savard's record I have a fair bit of confidence that when he picks Higgins 14th overall in the draft, that he's seen a fair bit too. By the way, how many times have you watched Malhotra play? Ever seen him except on TV? Is Malhotra the best you can do? Is there another poster boy out there you can think of? And all the talk about having Higgins, Plekanec, AND Malhotra is so much idle chatter anyway in that it ignores the single most important factor in determining the choice between Malhotra and Audette (assuming it existed at all): the immediate needs of the team and the legitimacy for various reasons of making a serious effort to get into the playoffs! You live in a bubble! And it doesn't matter if Audette has failed to turn into an asset of significant value, as you say. It doesn't matter. Manny Malhotra's not got significant value. He's worth a lot less than Chad Kilger, for cryin' out loud. For various reasons Audette's not easily tradeable right now, but the plan wasn't to get an asset of "signifcant value", but only to help the team in the short run and to be able if necessary to move him for some small return. But we don't have to make a "profit" on Audette, and had he not almost had his arm cut off it's very difficult to say that he wouldn't be sitting on a 25+ goal performance. That didn't happen. Now he's a tough nut to trade. That's life. Will he finish the the next three years in Montreal? Something tells me no. How much will we get for him? I don't know, but it really doesn't matter, because his playoff contribution last year, combined with whatever we do get for him (a 3rd or 4th rounder, say) is plenty to have gotten back for the "significant asset" you so laughingly describe Rucinsky as being.....Think! Rucinsky signed for less dough than Sergei Berezin! Rucinsky didn't have any serious interest from anyone until St. Louis caught the injury bug! Rucinsky, the UFA, signs for 1.7 million bucks a year! That's the "significant asset"? Get a grip. Wow! We shoulda gone for the Malhotra thing. That was the ticket to the playoffs. That was the ticket to our future strength at center! That would've been an investment! That would have made sense! Maybe on your little ecran, dude, but not beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 8, 2002 13:57:58 GMT -5
It can be.. BC posting something with not A word! not A single letter
|
|
|
Post by JacquesInFL on Nov 8, 2002 14:28:47 GMT -5
Speaking only on the payroll aspect of the debate: it is too high and Savard should shed some.
Why? The club is far from a playoff lock. And, frankly, I think the nice man writing the checks in Habland might get scared if the club goes down in flames for that price. So let's hedge the playoff bet by dumping Audette for anything. 3rd or 4th rounder... fine, but I doubt it. The club that takes him is assuming plenty of financial risk.
And, then, the goalie troika has to be broken. $40M sounds more reasonable for this edition's potential.
I like Savard. But if you have to fall in the river during the building process, it's better not to hit the water with a piano tied to your back.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 8, 2002 14:54:06 GMT -5
Nothing gets me like passive aggressivity....nice work.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Nov 8, 2002 15:09:02 GMT -5
The point of BC's post, if we could get back to the point, is that we could be looking at minimal return on a top 10 payroll, and some of the payroll we acquired (Audette) was poor asset management. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Savard could have done better for Rucinsky instead of inheriting Audette at $3MM for the next 3 years. But the only person to whom payroll matters is George Gillet. I think the average paying customer is sick of losing, wants to see a few playoff games, and isn't really concerned with the success/payroll ratio. Like we've discussed at length, Savard's strategy is pretty clear whether or not you agree with it. I'm sure he had a long discussion with GG and said: "look, I really think we have some good youngsters to rebuild this thing, but you know the natives are restless and we need to bring in some established NHL talent, but you know we'll have to overpay cause that's how it works, but trust me in 3 years we'll unload the veterans and we'll be able to spend the money productively to put us over the top". To which GG replied, "Word up, dude. If Gillet has committed $$$ to building this team over the next 3 years, and he's on board with Savard's strategy of how to get there, then that's all that matters. If Audette and his $3MM payroll is REALLY going to choke this franchise of resources needed to make a run at a better player, then yes I'm very pissed off and it was a horrible trade. But I don't think that's the case. The $$ will be there when it's needed, IMO. So we can argue all we want about whether or not we could have added a Manny Malhotra-type for the 3rd/4th line for cheap instead of Audette, but you know that's a pretty marginal argument, and won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Another voice of reason in the darkness. And here's a fair question: does anybody really think that Donald Audette is going to be a Hab for the start of the 2003 season? How about the start of the 2004 season? Anybody? Not me, that's for sure. And again, does it really matter if we only get a mid-round pick for him? Or even if we get stuck paying a million of his cheque over 2 years? Is this a big deal?
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Nov 8, 2002 16:07:49 GMT -5
Amonte is just PTH's favorite example. While we of course don't know if Amonte would have come to Montreal PTH's point has always been that we have too many mediocre, 2nd tier players tying up salary, and not enough higher, upper end players. Take away two $3 million players (say Audette and Czerkawski) and add Amonte, or Guerin, or Selanne or whoever, and would this team be better? We have the 10th highest payroll in the league (original point of this thread) and yet we have one star player (Theodore) and a team that could very easily miss the playoffs. As for using his opinion to make his point, isn't that what this board is for? Sure, we could all just blindly accept Savard's plan, and just assume he couldn't have got better, but what fun would that have been? If we are just going to meekly accept everything Savard does as being perfect, and good, and right, then heck, we might as well be Leaf fans... ;D Well I think we certainly could use one of them high priced players, but how often does that happen. We just can't compete with some of the other teams in the league for brining in high priced UFA's. Just look at who's signed here over the last few years, as a UFA and where the other high priced UFA's ended up. Yea it would be great to get Amonte, Guerin or Selanne, but I for one never dreamed it was possible to land one of them. Selanne maybe cause he seems to be on the downturn of his career. To me getting Guerin would have been great, and what we sorely needed (size, strength, and goal scoring) but I would be shocked if he would sign here, or that we would pay a player 9-10M a year. Savard added mediocre talent. cause that's all he could get. How many players that are above mediocreity are banging down the door to get into Habland? Guys like Berezin, Chow, Gilmor, Audette, McKay, Perreault, what do they have in common? Mediocre talent that wasn't in high demand. You see, its nice to want high priced players, but its totaly different then actually getting one. Yea a team or 2 were interested in Gilmor, McKay and Perreault, but they were in the same boat as us. Teams like the wings, stars, flyers, can get those high priced players, cause they have the money, and those players WANT to be there. As for your comment about using your opinions, yes thats what the boards are for. Thats why I voiced mine. My opinion is that we would have very little chance of getting a player like Amonte, my opinion is that even though Malhotra was available I don't think he's very good and maybe Savard didn't either. I thought that Audette for Rosey was a good deal, as we needed Audette then, and still do. But I don't just take what Savard dishes out and say that its great. I form my own opinions, and if I agree then I state them that way, if not then I say I don't agree, but I'm just a fan not a professional. Its much easier to run a team in dreamland then reality.
|
|