|
|
Post by clear observer on Dec 9, 2008 13:06:55 GMT -5
I shouldn't do this, but .... what the heck ... Would you move Komisarek, an UFA, to Florida, for Bouwmeester, another UFA, straight up? Komisarek was touted as a future leader of our club one day and Bouwmeester is already wearing the "A". Would ya' ... huh ... huh ... ;D Good God, yes..... ......YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 9, 2008 13:16:48 GMT -5
I shouldn't do this, but .... what the heck ... Would you move Komisarek, an UFA, to Florida, for Bouwmeester, another UFA, straight up? Komisarek was touted as a future leader of our club one day and Bouwmeester is already wearing the "A". Would ya' ... huh ... huh ... ;D I'd do it since it seems lopsided in our favor. I mean, JayBo is Markov and Komisarek all in one... Komi and Higgins for JayBo ? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 9, 2008 13:18:23 GMT -5
I shouldn't do this, but .... what the heck ... Would you move Komisarek, an UFA, to Florida, for Bouwmeester, another UFA, straight up? Komisarek was touted as a future leader of our club one day and Bouwmeester is already wearing the "A". Would ya' ... huh ... huh ... ;D To be fair, I think it's easier to get the A in Florida than it would be in Montreal. I haven't seen enough of Bouwmeester to say whether I'd make the trade straight up. I'm merely going by some of the things I've read of late and some of the hype. He's on pace for 48 pts and a -1 for the season. Mike's on pace for 5 pits and a +3. What intangibles does Jay bring? Does he impose any fear in front of his own net? Does he block as many shots at Mike does? What does Jay bring that is better than what we have? Skating is his big asset. I don't see the booming shot we would like to have on the back end for our PP. Anyone that signs Jay long term is definitely signing a contract based on future potential as opposed to past performance. I wouldn't get rid of Markov for him. Hammer maybe, but I like the veteran presence Roman brings. I think we need to keep the sand paper game that Mike gives us. Forget it. I talked myself out of it! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 9, 2008 14:04:03 GMT -5
I shouldn't do this, but .... what the heck ... Would you move Komisarek, an UFA, to Florida, for Bouwmeester, another UFA, straight up? Komisarek was touted as a future leader of our club one day and Bouwmeester is already wearing the "A". Would ya' ... huh ... huh ... ;D To be fair, I think it's easier to get the A in Florida than it would be in Montreal. I haven't seen enough of Bouwmeester to say whether I'd make the trade straight up. I'm merely going by some of the things I've read of late and some of the hype. He's on pace for 48 pts and a -1 for the season. Mike's on pace for 5 pits and a +3. What intangibles does Jay bring? Does he impose any fear in front of his own net? Does he block as many shots at Mike does? What does Jay bring that is better than what we have? Skating is his big asset. I don't see the booming shot we would like to have on the back end for our PP. Anyone that signs Jay long term is definitely signing a contract based on future potential as opposed to past performance. I wouldn't get rid of Markov for him. Hammer maybe, but I like the veteran presence Roman brings. I think we need to keep the sand paper game that Mike gives us. Forget it. I talked myself out of it! ;D 25 years old. logs a million minutes a game. low +/- on a weak team. skates like the wind. 6'4" (can't teach size) seldom takes penalties. He is not a Bobby Orr or a Larry Robinson. (they don't come around very often) Also not a Hamrlik, Gorges, Brisebois, Boullion, Dandenault, O'byrne. He makes us better and fills a hole with a lot of good safe minutes of solid quality defense. It totally depends on the cost. All the rumors of Sundin, Marlow, Ovetchkin, Lecavalier have wild speculation that usually includes numbers like 21, 46 and 74 sprinkled with no supporting evidence. I would welcome Jay if Florida is attempting to dispose of an asset they expect to lose for nothing, but avoid fantasy speculation. We have a number of UFAs coming up and BG's asset management is not his strong suit. (Ribs, Souray, Ryder, Grabs, Huet) |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 9, 2008 14:36:55 GMT -5
We have a number of UFAs coming up and BG's asset management is not his strong suit. (Ribs, Souray, Ryder, Grabs, Huet) Grabovsky? Ryder? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 9, 2008 15:01:10 GMT -5
To be fair, I think it's easier to get the A in Florida than it would be in Montreal. I haven't seen enough of Bouwmeester to say whether I'd make the trade straight up. I'm merely going by some of the things I've read of late and some of the hype. He's on pace for 48 pts and a -1 for the season. Mike's on pace for 5 pits and a +3. What intangibles does Jay bring? Does he impose any fear in front of his own net? Does he block as many shots at Mike does? What does Jay bring that is better than what we have? Skating is his big asset. I don't see the booming shot we would like to have on the back end for our PP. Anyone that signs Jay long term is definitely signing a contract based on future potential as opposed to past performance. I wouldn't get rid of Markov for him. Hammer maybe, but I like the veteran presence Roman brings. I think we need to keep the sand paper game that Mike gives us. Forget it. I talked myself out of it! ;D . We have a number of UFAs coming up and BG's asset management is not his strong suit. (Ribs, Souray, Ryder, Grabs, Huet) Ribiero - yes I agree but: Souray wasn't re-signed but Hamrlik was signed. Grabovski - he had left the team once & I would not have been surprised if he did it again if he didn't make the NHL. He probably would be in the KHL now. BG got a second rounder & a prospect for him. Huet - he was a UFA to be that ended up getting overpaid in Chicago. I think a 2nd round pick was decent value. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 9, 2008 15:02:21 GMT -5
We have a number of UFAs coming up and BG's asset management is not his strong suit. (Ribs, Souray, Ryder, Grabs, Huet) Grabovsky? Ryder? Really? Our leading scorer has 22 points ... Grabovski has 18, Ryder 17. Grabovski on pace for 29 goals, Ryder on pace for 22 goals Our leading goal scorer is Tanguay on pace for 30 ... and then Lang on pace for 25 (who people are complaining about) ... so yes I'd say we miss those goals/production |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 9, 2008 16:03:55 GMT -5
Our leading scorer has 22 points ... Grabovski has 18, Ryder 17. Grabovski on pace for 29 goals, Ryder on pace for 22 goals Our leading goal scorer is Tanguay on pace for 30 ... and then Lang on pace for 25 (who people are complaining about) ... so yes I'd say we miss those goals/production If one can say that Tanguay & Lang replaced Grabovski & Ryder on the roster are they really missing those goals? Isn't it a wash? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 9, 2008 16:04:41 GMT -5
Our leading scorer has 22 points ... Grabovski has 18, Ryder 17. Grabovski on pace for 29 goals, Ryder on pace for 22 goals Our leading goal scorer is Tanguay on pace for 30 ... and then Lang on pace for 25 (who people are complaining about) ... so yes I'd say we miss those goals/production And next year Grabs won't be flying under the radar. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 9, 2008 16:09:25 GMT -5
Our leading scorer has 22 points ... Grabovski has 18, Ryder 17. Grabovski on pace for 29 goals, Ryder on pace for 22 goals Our leading goal scorer is Tanguay on pace for 30 ... and then Lang on pace for 25 (who people are complaining about) ... so yes I'd say we miss those goals/production So you'd be on board with paying Ryder $16M for the next 4 years, instead of having Tanguay who replaced him? And you'd rather have Grabovsky than Lang? Seriously? There are plenty of examples of questionable asset management. Ryder and Grabovsky aren't them. Bring up Hainsey, Beauchemin, Ribeiro, et al. if you're actually trying to make an argument. Not you Skilly, but Gainey detractors in general. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 9, 2008 16:09:26 GMT -5
To be fair, I think it's easier to get the A in Florida than it would be in Montreal. I haven't seen enough of Bouwmeester to say whether I'd make the trade straight up. I'm merely going by some of the things I've read of late and some of the hype. He's on pace for 48 pts and a -1 for the season. Mike's on pace for 5 pits and a +3. What intangibles does Jay bring? Does he impose any fear in front of his own net? Does he block as many shots at Mike does? What does Jay bring that is better than what we have? Skating is his big asset. I don't see the booming shot we would like to have on the back end for our PP. Anyone that signs Jay long term is definitely signing a contract based on future potential as opposed to past performance. I wouldn't get rid of Markov for him. Hammer maybe, but I like the veteran presence Roman brings. I think we need to keep the sand paper game that Mike gives us. Forget it. I talked myself out of it! ;D 25 years old. logs a million minutes a game. low +/- on a weak team. skates like the wind. 6'4" (can't teach size) seldom takes penalties. He is not a Bobby Orr or a Larry Robinson. (they don't come around very often) Also not a Hamrlik, Gorges, Brisebois, Boullion, Dandenault, O'byrne. He makes us better and fills a hole with a lot of good safe minutes of solid quality defense. It totally depends on the cost. All the rumors of Sundin, Marlow, Ovetchkin, Lecavalier have wild speculation that usually includes numbers like 21, 46 and 74 sprinkled with no supporting evidence. I would welcome Jay if Florida is attempting to dispose of an asset they expect to lose for nothing, but avoid fantasy speculation. We have a number of UFAs coming up and BG's asset management is not his strong suit. (Ribs, Souray, Ryder, Grabs, Huet) Jay signed a 1 year deal for nearly $5 million. He's gonna want at least that on the open market. My bet is Komisarek will be cheaper. With $10 million invested in Markov and Hamrlik already, we can't be spending $5 million plus on Jay. We'd clearly have to get rid of one of them, and I'm not prepared to do that as I don't think he's a clear upgrade at this point. With the status of so many of our forwards up in the air, and the cap expecting to drop for the 10-11 season, I don't think you can make it work. Perhaps if we didn't have the prospects we have. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 9, 2008 16:10:21 GMT -5
Our leading scorer has 22 points ... Grabovski has 18, Ryder 17. Grabovski on pace for 29 goals, Ryder on pace for 22 goals Our leading goal scorer is Tanguay on pace for 30 ... and then Lang on pace for 25 (who people are complaining about) ... so yes I'd say we miss those goals/production So you'd be on board with paying Ryder $16M for the next 4 years, instead of having Tanguay who replaced him? And you'd rather have Grabovsky than Lang? Seriously? Who here doesn't think Ryder is benefiting from the situation? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 9, 2008 16:14:03 GMT -5
So you'd be on board with paying Ryder $16M for the next 4 years, instead of having Tanguay who replaced him? And you'd rather have Grabovsky than Lang? Seriously? Who here doesn't think Ryder is benefiting from the situation? He certainly is. He's getting paid $4M to score on a 22-goal pace. Good for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 9, 2008 23:53:04 GMT -5
I didn't say I wanted Grabs or Ryder back on my first line. I said that BeeGee's asset management is not his strong suit. We got nothing for Ryder, not even a bag of pucks. Nothing for Souray.
Toronto will get nothing for Sundin. I don't call that good asset management. When they saw the writing on the wall that Sundin wouldn't sign, they should have moved him for a first. They couldn't because Mats had a no-trade clause. No trade = no good = bad management.
We are about to lose a couple of unrestricted free agents, the core of our team. There is nobody I wouldn't give up for Tavares. I would prepare a package to send to Tampa for their #1 pick next year.
We have lots of depth, good young guys fighting to make it to the NHL. More young guys than we have spots to be filled.
Lots of depth, but no superstar. Kovalev does things that nobody else can. It would be better if he put the puck in the net more often. With all his talent he should not have fewer goals than Grabovsky and Ryder.
It's like a yard sale. You get $0.10 on the dollar for things you don't need. It's better asset management to get rid of assets before you have to and need a fire sale. August 1st you get a fraction of what you get in the spring before the deadline.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 10, 2008 0:30:22 GMT -5
I didn't say I wanted Grabs or Ryder back on my first line. I said that BeeGee's asset management is not his strong suit. We got nothing for Ryder, not even a bag of pucks. Nothing for Souray. Toronto will get nothing for Sundin. I don't call that good asset management. When they saw the writing on the wall that Sundin wouldn't sign, they should have moved him for a first. They couldn't because Mats had a no-trade clause. No trade = no good = bad management. We are about to lose a couple of unrestricted free agents, the core of our team. There is nobody I wouldn't give up for Tavares. I would prepare a package to send to Tampa for their #1 pick next year. We have lots of depth, good young guys fighting to make it to the NHL. More young guys than we have spots to be filled. Lots of depth, but no superstar. Kovalev does things that nobody else can. It would be better if he put the puck in the net more often. With all his talent he should not have fewer goals than Grabovsky and Ryder. It's like a yard sale. You get $0.10 on the dollar for things you don't need. It's better asset management to get rid of assets before you have to and need a fire sale. August 1st you get a fraction of what you get in the spring before the deadline. So what you're saying is that 2 years ago Gainey should have traded both Souray and Rivet at the deadline. Or that we should have kept Souray instead of acquiring Hamrlik? Explain the bad asset management in more detail. You're entirely dismissing the notion that players help win games as though it has no value. Keeping Souray around helped the Habs come very close to making the playoffs, and Gainey made a measured move by dealing Rivet. Ryder.. perhaps we could have gotten a bag of pucks for him (though maybe not), but depth for a team that had deep playoff aspirations can't be dismissed entirely. Perhaps nothing was received in exchange for those players, but calling it "bad asset management" is a crock. You can't trade away every impending UFA if you still want to.. you know.. win a game or two. And I wouldn't get your hopes up for anyone dealing a high pick this year. The price would be too high for anyone to be able to sell it to themselves. Think about this. Waddell was offered any number of fantastic players for the 1st overall when Kovalchuk was up. Jose Theodore (about to win the Hart & Vezina trophy), Biron, Dunham and Peca among them. He denied those offers. With Tavares and Hedman up, nobody's going to trade that pick. Besides, you trade those assets for an established player if you want to. Not a potential one (and you're talking about bad asset management?). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 10, 2008 8:03:28 GMT -5
Who here doesn't think Ryder is benefiting from the situation? He certainly is. He's getting paid $4M to score on a 22-goal pace. Good for him. I didn't say I'd rather have them ... just that his goals would be nice to have (whether Koivu, Higgins, or Kovalev got them in other words) Now, I don't want to get into the whole debate (again), but I am not on board with the Tanguay replaced Ryder hoopla. It is, was, and always will be my position that Gainey decided that Higgins was going to be Ryder's replacement. Tanguay is a set-up guy, Ryder is a shooter ..... last year they did everything (and this year too) to make Higgins the premier shooter on the first line. Would I rather have Ryder over Higgins? I don't know. Some day I do, some days I say "I dont think so" .... but Ryder is primarily a third liner on Boston (he played 7-10 games I think with Bergeron and Axellson). Higgins was a first liner/second liner on Montreal until last night ..... Ryder is out producing him (with Wheeler and Kreji), playing better defensively, and not getting injured as much .... Higgins has played with Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, and Lang (all of which had slumps with him on their line), now I ask, which of those four are worse than Wheeler and Kreji? As for the money ... $1.7 million for Higgins to be on a pace for 30 points. Talk to me next year. How much will it cost to keep Higgins? Would you be ok signing him for 4 million next year with those numbers? Remember everyone (ok not everyone, there was one decenting voice  ) crying out last year for Gainey to extend him immediately and that 4 million would be a steal..... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 10, 2008 8:52:13 GMT -5
How does Higgins replace Ryder when they were complementary players on the same team for 3+ seasons?
Moreover, Tanguay even started the year in Ryder's traditional spot alongside Koivu and Higgins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 10, 2008 10:06:15 GMT -5
How does Higgins replace Ryder when they were complementary players on the same team for 3+ seasons? Moreover, Tanguay even started the year in Ryder's traditional spot alongside Koivu and Higgins. I knew it wouldnt be the popular opinion .. but its mine .. Higgins replaced Ryder's role .... started last season and was attempted this season. All right and left wingers are not created equal ... we are using Tanguay on the left wing and he is listed as a left winger (on most sites) but he replaced a right winger ? ... More over, people say 4 million per is not great for a 14 goal man (or someone on pace for 22 currently), yet that is a by-product of the one year contracts after 30 goal seasons. That is Gainey's fault IMO (and gets back to HFLA's original thought). Ryder wanted a 3 yr deal at 2 million per, and then wanted a 3 yr deal at 2.5 million per .... but only got 1 yr deals. Looked great last year (when I say the blame was misdirected), but if he had of gotten his 3 yr , 2 million deal those 30 goals would have been a bargain .... and this would be his final year with us. How many players can perform when EVERY year is the final year of his contract ... I wouldnt say many can continually get better. So IMO, it isn't Ryder at 4 million ... it is Ryder at 2 million (or even 2.5 like he wanted in 2007) vs Higgins at 1.7 million + expected raise. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 10, 2008 10:27:33 GMT -5
I knew it wouldnt be the popular opinion .. but its mine .. Higgins replaced Ryder's role .... started last season and was attempted this season. All right and left wingers are not created equal ... we are using Tanguay on the left wing and he is listed as a left winger (on most sites) but he replaced a right winger ? ... And likewise you're saying that Higgins, a LW, replaced Ryder... Tanguay has played RW for us at times (not that it's really key to my opinion), and he took Ryder's roster spot which is moret to the point. As far as I'm concerned, that's replacing, but to each their own. More over, people say 4 million per is not great for a 14 goal man (or someone on pace for 22 currently), yet that is a by-product of the one year contracts after 30 goal seasons. That is Gainey's fault IMO (and gets back to HFLA's original thought). And that's why it isn't us paying him $4M, I would guess. Ryder wanted a 3 yr deal at 2 million per, and then wanted a 3 yr deal at 2.5 million per .... but only got 1 yr deals. Looked great last year (when I say the blame was misdirected), but if he had of gotten his 3 yr , 2 million deal those 30 goals would have been a bargain .... and this would be his final year with us. How many players can perform when EVERY year is the final year of his contract ... I wouldnt say many can continually get better. I think that's the role of a 24, 25 and 26 year old player. Get better. Improve in other areas of the game, and admittedly Ryder did improve his positional play last season. However, it apparently didn't work out in Montreal playing that way, for whatever reason (not getting into that debate). Who's even to say that Ryder would have scored 30 goals 2 seasons ago having had his extension? Hindsight is 20/20, and it seems clear that Gainey had little faith in Ryder's ability to produce consistently -- for whatever reason. So IMO, it isn't Ryder at 4 million ... it is Ryder at 2 million (or even 2.5 like he wanted in 2007) vs Higgins at 1.7 million + expected raise. Yeah that's fair enough, I guess. So if Gainey gets a minus for that, does he get a plus for replacing Smolinski with Lang, and adding Tanguay to replace nobody? Going back to the original post, I don't know how anyone can think that the return we got for Grabovsky is a detraction from Gainey's asset management. He turned an asset worth nothing to us into a 2nd round pick and Greg Pateryn. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 10, 2008 10:35:27 GMT -5
I knew it wouldnt be the popular opinion .. but its mine .. Higgins replaced Ryder's role .... started last season and was attempted this season. All right and left wingers are not created equal ... we are using Tanguay on the left wing and he is listed as a left winger (on most sites) but he replaced a right winger ? ... And likewise you're saying that Higgins, a LW, replaced Ryder... Tanguay has played RW for us at times (not that it's really key to my opinion), and he took Ryder's roster spot which is moret to the point. As far as I'm concerned, that's replacing, but to each their own. And that's why it isn't us paying him $4M, I would guess. I think that's the role of a 24, 25 and 26 year old player. Get better. Improve in other areas of the game, and admittedly Ryder did improve his positional play last season. However, it apparently didn't work out in Montreal playing that way, for whatever reason (not getting into that debate). Who's even to say that Ryder would have scored 30 goals 2 seasons ago having had his extension? Hindsight is 20/20, and it seems clear that Gainey had little faith in Ryder's ability to produce consistently -- for whatever reason. So IMO, it isn't Ryder at 4 million ... it is Ryder at 2 million (or even 2.5 like he wanted in 2007) vs Higgins at 1.7 million + expected raise. Yeah that's fair enough, I guess. So if Gainey gets a minus for that, does he get a plus for replacing Smolinski with Lang, and adding Tanguay to replace nobody? Going back to the original post, I don't know how anyone can think that the return we got for Grabovsky is a detraction from Gainey's asset management. He turned an asset worth nothing to us into a 2nd round pick and Greg Pateryn. Fair enough .. good debate. But one last thought, didnt Higgins play right side last night and S. kosty the left ... and if Tanguay is actually a left winger (in Colorado and now on the second), wouldn't Higgins be the right winger ... ... ok no need to respond, just yanking the chain a little... |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 10, 2008 13:48:18 GMT -5
Florida is most likely going to be a seller at the deadline so why would they trade JayBo now for another soon-to-be UFA when they can collect a player, a prospect, and a pick from a desperate buyer come February? It makes no sense.
In order to pry him away from the Panthers now it would need to be essentially a pre-emptive deadline deal and would have to be a sweet package.
Something along the lines of AKost, McDonagh, plus a pick. Higgins I don't think would interest them since he only has another year after this on his contract. Still interested? I may be if I thought he could make an immediate impact for the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 10, 2008 14:03:52 GMT -5
Florida is most likely going to be a seller at the deadline so why would they trade JayBo now for another soon-to-be UFA when they can collect a player, a prospect, and a pick from a desperate buyer come February? It makes no sense. In order to pry him away from the Panthers now it would need to be essentially a pre-emptive deadline deal and would have to be a sweet package. Something along the lines of AKost, McDonagh, plus a pick. Higgins I don't think would interest them since he only has another year after this on his contract. Still interested? I may be if I thought he could make an immediate impact for the season. Higgins is an RFA this season. He has only one more year of restricted rights, but his contract ends after this season. I think Florida is deluding themselves if they can get AK, McDonagh (a 1st round pick that doesn't look like a bust.. so risk is removed) and a pick (I presume you meant a 1st). Without a contract, JBo will get about the same as Hossa did last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 10, 2008 15:35:45 GMT -5
Florida is most likely going to be a seller at the deadline so why would they trade JayBo now for another soon-to-be UFA when they can collect a player, a prospect, and a pick from a desperate buyer come February? It makes no sense. In order to pry him away from the Panthers now it would need to be essentially a pre-emptive deadline deal and would have to be a sweet package. Something along the lines of AKost, McDonagh, plus a pick. Higgins I don't think would interest them since he only has another year after this on his contract. Still interested? I may be if I thought he could make an immediate impact for the season. Higgins is an RFA this season. He has only one more year of restricted rights, but his contract ends after this season. I think Florida is deluding themselves if they can get AK, McDonagh (a 1st round pick that doesn't look like a bust.. so risk is removed) and a pick (I presume you meant a 1st). Without a contract, JBo will get about the same as Hossa did last year. Well there is certainly precedent for pending UFAs to have high trade values IF the buying teams believe the player to be an important piece for a Stanley Cup run. You recall that Edmonton traded UFA to be Ryan Smyth to the Islanders for exactly that package: player, prospect, pick. Hossa returned two roster players from Pittsburgh, plus Angelo Esposito and a 1st round pick. So perhaps JayBo isn't in that established echelon of players but he's a big, young, dman who can make a difference now and in the future. My trade proposal was an example but I think from Florida's perspective it would need to get back a couple of players they can build around plus a future pick. Again, they can simply wait until the deadline and sell to the highest bidder so if we wanted to pre-empt that we would need to offer something compelling. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Dec 10, 2008 16:08:32 GMT -5
In each of those deals, the 1st was far and away the most valuable asset. Colby Armstrong is a shootout specialist grinder, Erik Christensen is a warm body IMO, Esposito's lustre has vanished, and a very late 1st round pick.
Smyth went for Nilsson -- admittedly a decent-but-not-great roster player -- alongside a 1st round pick and O'Marra, who is and was just awful thus far in his pro career.
So the formula of "player, prospect, pick" to me doesn't correspond to Higgins (apparently a pretty highly coveted player), McDonagh (one of the best D prospects around) and a 1st round pick. Both of the aforementioned trades had throwaways in them.
I agree that offer would be compelling for Florida. Too compelling if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragefury on Dec 10, 2008 16:38:39 GMT -5
We have a number of UFAs coming up and BG's asset management is not his strong suit. (Ribs, Souray, Ryder, Grabs, Huet) Grabovsky? Ryder? Really? lol wow... I came here in hopes of finding better habs related chat than HF....... I can't believe that..... all those players I wouldn't want on our team right now, especially for what they get paid. Worst part is, he leaves out streit, the one remotely good player I'd consider having still. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 10, 2008 19:06:40 GMT -5
lol wow... I came here in hopes of finding better habs related chat than HF....... I can't believe that..... all those players I wouldn't want on our team right now, especially for what they get paid. Worst part is, he leaves out streit, the one remotely good player I'd consider having still. Welcome . . . and if you have time, read the millions of past posts discussing this issue [and others]. Discussing. Discussing rationally. Discussing rationally with respect. And with respect to what Streit brought and took with them, what Souray, Rivet, Ryder, Grabs, Theo, Ryder all brought and took with them . . . Some miss them and some are glad that they are gone . . . and some hope for others to come [JayBo, Sundin] and go [Higgins, Komi] while others are of different opinions. Key owrd. Opinions. But this is just me. Wait for a mod to give you a proper welcome! ;D But until that happens, don't be shy. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 10, 2008 21:49:11 GMT -5
lol wow... I came here in hopes of finding better habs related chat than HF....... I can't believe that..... all those players I wouldn't want on our team right now, especially for what they get paid. Worst part is, he leaves out streit, the one remotely good player I'd consider having still. Welcome . . . and if you have time, read the millions of past posts discussing this issue [and others]. But this is just me. Wait for a mod to give you a proper welcome! ;D But until that happens, don't be shy. Wait, that's me!  Welcome Ragefury. You can rant and rave as much as you like on this board, providing it's done respectfully of others' opinions. For example, I admire your admiration for Streit, but I wouldn't pay him that kind of money to play for the Habs. And I'd play him up front except for PP. But I can understand your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Dec 11, 2008 2:25:24 GMT -5
A delayed reply HFLA, I hope you don't mind. I disagree with your assessment of the Huet trade.
I believe we would not have won the Cup with Huet in goal, and probably would not have got past Philly as our offense couldn't do anything but shoot the puck wide of the net or into Biron's logo, or so it seemed. I'm pretty sure Gainey would not have come close to matching the offer Huet received from Chicago, which means we lose him for nothing and end up going into this season with exactly 0 games of playoff experience of any goaltender under contract (I'm making the assumption Gainey decides Price-Halak are good enough and doesn't go out and sign or trade for a has-been like Roloson or Joseph, neither of which are good enough to be starters).
Gainey got a 2nd round pick, and got us some playoff experience for our young starting goaltender, when we were (I think) the youngest team in the playoffs.
Regarding your opinion on the asset (mis)management of Ribeiro I definitely agree, Souray as well. Oh how I wanted Souray traded, Anaheim might have wanted him, Waddell was desperate and may have overpaid. T'was a seller's market.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 11, 2008 7:01:54 GMT -5
Seems Gainey was hedging his bets with Souray/Rivet.
Trade one and get something because we aren't go to make the playoffs; keep one and risk it because we were going to make the playoffs [and because he wanted to avoid the impression of tanking].
Lose-lose. he shoulda kept both or traded both [the latter, my preference, because while the Thrashers/Jackets/etc want to just make the playoffs, we know what it is to make big noise in them and nothing else is acceptable. Right, those of us who know what it's like?].
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 11, 2008 7:33:04 GMT -5
which means we lose him for nothing and end up going into this season with exactly 0 games of playoff experience of any goaltender under contract (I'm making the assumption Gainey decides Price-Halak are good enough and doesn't go out and sign or trade for a has-been like Roloson or Joseph, neither of which are good enough to be starters). You are bang on here .... Gainey was asked at a forum I attended straight out why he traded Huet when it appeared that Montreal had a great chance at winning a Cup ... he responded that the team had too many unknowns that he felt needed to be evaluated sooner rather than later. He wanted to see how Price played as a #1, and he wanted to give him playoff experience. He stated, that in his opinion, they had 2 young goalies who could possibly be the goalie of the future and they both needed work, NHL work, before they possibly lost Huet. |
|
) crying out last year for Gainey to extend him immediately and that 4 million would be a steal..... 
