|
|
Post by franko on Dec 11, 2008 8:19:44 GMT -5
What's the over-under for Huet's games played before injury/slow-dwon, Skilly [30?]?
He's at 13 now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 11, 2008 10:48:28 GMT -5
What's the over-under for Huet's games played before injury/slow-dwon, Skilly [30?]? He's at 13 now. yes, 30 |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 11, 2008 22:45:51 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. I don't mind at all when somebody disagrees. Ribs, Souray and Streit you appear to agree with me. Huet was our #1 goaltender on the market at a time when some teams were desparately seeking a goaltender or backup for an injured goaltender. A #2 pick is a shot at the 50th best 18 year old with no cartainty that he will ever get through a training camp or full season in the AHL. We've seen the development of our Minnesota #1 picks and know what certainties they are. I've also seen Gretzky go out on a limb to draft Blake Wheeler and not able to get him to sign or anything in return.Huet proved that he could play in the NHL, be a starter and be a good'un in the most important position on the team. Guys like Tavares don't come along every year. Even the bad special #1's like Lindros are still very valuable assets. Even if the Nords couldn't sign him, they got a superb return for his services from Philly. I'm not advocating to run Gainey out of town. He's done a great job turning Houles AHL team into a NHL contender. Gainey has done more right than wrong, but asset management has not been his best contribution. Boston wanted Ryder. They wanted him enough to give him a guaranteed contract. They didn't want him sitting in the pressbox. If they wanted him that bad, they would have been willing to give us assets in return. My "ASSET" comments are not predicated on wanting Ryder playing for us or keeping him. If we knew he didn't fit, he had to go, but before he left we should have tried to secure something in return. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 11, 2008 23:02:46 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 aboard Rage. I should have made my comments more clear. Asset Management. I buy and sell stocks. Usually I buy shares in companies I like, companies with good management in growing industries with superior products. Sometimes I buy shares of companies that I don't like, simply because I believe their assets are undervalued. If a company has a P/E of 2 or less and they are stable and not growing, I buy in because of the value I perceive, not because of an emotional love. I try to buy high and sell low. (It doesn't always work, but I try) JayBo has the skills, youth and potential to improve. I would overpay his current production for the likely improvement down the road. I emotionally like Steve Begin. I like his work ethic, and spirit. His potential to improve down the road is nil. Kovalev is strong, supremely skilled, hits, experienced and has a good shot. His best days are behind him. His vaalue in four years will be zero. His value today is what he produces or what we can get in exchange. Dangle Tavares before my eyes and Begin and Kovalev are gone. GG doesn't own the Hab's because he grew up loving hockey. He was offered a financial opportunity by Molson's and he took it. His RISK and astute financial manipulation was richly rewarded. It's about the benjamins. My experience is there are some very intelligent posters, some fools, some cranks and some great guys in this community. Hope you get to enjoy them all. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 14, 2008 1:12:17 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?]. As I heard it, we'd shown Rivet wasn't needed when he was out with mono or some flu for an extended period - so we weren't really losing someone who was contributing much. Souray, on the other hand, was a key contributor on the PP. However, I thought Gainey messed up by not getting us help in net. At the time, Huet was notably shaky (and eventually injured) and Halak awfully raw... I thought Gainey had to either move Souray for best possible value (and essentially give up on the playoffs), or get us help in net (to nudge us into a playoff berth), and Gainey did neither. And ultimately, it was that lack of goaltending that cost us that berth - Halak was uneven, so we went with a rusty Huet for the final game, which sealed our fate. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Dec 14, 2008 2:58:44 GMT -5
I don't mind at all when somebody disagrees. Ribs, Souray and Streit you appear to agree with me. Huet was our #1 goaltender on the market at a time when some teams were desparately seeking a goaltender or backup for an injured goaltender. A #2 pick is a shot at the 50th best 18 year old with no cartainty that he will ever get through a training camp or full season in the AHL. We've seen the development of our Minnesota #1 picks and know what certainties they are. I've also seen Gretzky go out on a limb to draft Blake Wheeler and not able to get him to sign or anything in return.Huet proved that he could play in the NHL, be a starter and be a good'un in the most important position on the team. Guys like Tavares don't come along every year. Even the bad special #1's like Lindros are still very valuable assets. Even if the Nords couldn't sign him, they got a superb return for his services from Philly. I'm not advocating to run Gainey out of town. He's done a great job turning Houles AHL team into a NHL contender. Gainey has done more right than wrong, but asset management has not been his best contribution. Boston wanted Ryder. They wanted him enough to give him a guaranteed contract. They didn't want him sitting in the pressbox. If they wanted him that bad, they would have been willing to give us assets in return. My "ASSET" comments are not predicated on wanting Ryder playing for us or keeping him. If we knew he didn't fit, he had to go, but before he left we should have tried to secure something in return. The trades/non-trades heading into trade deadline are always tough ones. Who knows what someone is offering and how low-balling some of the GMs try to get. Gainey sure gives no hints. I liked trading Rivet and getting Gorges and a second (Pacioretty) when he was seen to be replaceable (Koivu friendship aside). I wanted to get rid of Souray because he had value and we were a borderline playoff team anyway. Sure, he was the QB, but he also leaked like a seive in his own end. He also had big time value and they never made any effort to re-sign him. They should have tried to move him for some young roster player and some future prospects/picks. Someone would have antied up. Huet...Bob gambled on Price and the kid eventually ran out of steam/ability. He did get something in return and his "kid goalie" got a few more lessons in the process. I am okay with that move. Huet had not proven that he could win the big game. I did a few posts back in the day about his third period goals...he tended to look good until things were on the line. Streit. They had no way to pay what others were willing to pay. I would have dangled him out there to see what someone was willing to pay. I would have kept him over Ryder though, whom they even sat most of the end of the season and into the playoffs. Is a back to back 30 goal scorer not worth something at trade deadline? Especially if the coach just benches him anyway! Grabovski was talented but never meshed with the team. He rendered a prospect (Pateryn) and a second rounder (Lang) that looks like a decent enough move for now. The personality issues with Grabs seem to have made the move necessary. This looks like a repeat trend with Bob, as others have left town under similar conditions (Ribs, Theo and Dag-wood). Some have rendered some return, but they were also seen as addition by subtraction that none of us fully understand the value of as we sit a tad too far away from the locker room, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 9, 2009 22:07:31 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. And that's coming from someoe who thinks JBo is as overrated as they come. This contract will make us appreciate what we got Markov for.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 9, 2009 22:25:51 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. And that's coming from someoe who thinks JBo is as overrated as they come. This contract will make us appreciate what we got Markov for. Heard on TSN recently that he has never played on a PO game, not even in junior. I think Martin set the bar too high for him & was never going to be satisfied with any offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 10, 2009 8:40:51 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. And that's coming from someoe who thinks JBo is as overrated as they come. This contract will make us appreciate what we got Markov for. Heard on TSN recently that he has never played on a PO game, not even in junior. I think Martin set the bar too high for him & was never going to be satisfied with any offer. He has played 18 playoff games with the Chicago Wolves .....  |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Apr 10, 2009 11:08:46 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. And that's coming from someoe who thinks JBo is as overrated as they come. This contract will make us appreciate what we got Markov for. I'd sign him, in lieu of "you know who", in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 10, 2009 11:20:20 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. This is going to happen very often. When you're in a playoff race you simply can't release your best elements in fear of losing them in the summer (unless that trade makes you better immediately). While it may make sense fantasy league/asset management wise, in the real world it sends the wrong message to your fanbase, your players and the rest of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Apr 10, 2009 12:48:15 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. This is going to happen very often. When you're in a playoff race you simply can't release your best elements in fear of losing them in the summer (unless that trade makes you better immediately). While it may make sense fantasy league/asset management wise, in the real world it sends the wrong message to your fanbase, your players and the rest of the league. And what message does, "sorry, lost him for nothing" send? Oh, and the unrealistic "but we'd have a better chance" at a cup doesn't wash with me. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 10, 2009 23:35:48 GMT -5
You also can't equate "We traded our best defenseman", with "We've given up and we're going to miss the playoffs". Often, after a team trades a UFA, they actually play better, even if they didn't get much immediate help in return. I have no idea why it happens, I've just noticed that it does. Pressure off the rest of the team maybe? I don't think trading Bouwmeester would have hurt the Panthers as much as they thought. Just as I didn't think trading Souray would have hurt the Habs as much as the brain trust thought. And you don't lose him for nothing. The Rivet deal was one of Bob's best and Souray could have turned into something almost as good (we were a bit lucky that Gorges turned out well and that Pacioretty is looking more and more like a stud). We would certainly be better today if we had traded him, and we might even have made the playoffs without him. Streit was around, wasn't he?
Obviously, I tend to fall into the 'trade-em' camp rather than the 'hold-em' camp. I hate to lose assets for nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 11, 2009 7:25:02 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. This is going to happen very often. When you're in a playoff race you simply can't release your best elements in fear of losing them in the summer (unless that trade makes you better immediately). While it may make sense fantasy league/asset management wise, in the real world it sends the wrong message to your fanbase, your players and the rest of the league. PLus there is value, although it's hard to quantify, to keeping the player & gaining points in the standings. For example, the Blues could have traded Tkachuk but gambled that he would help them make the post season. It worked for them. In this day and age you cannot automatically trade every pending UFA. You must look at each case separately. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 11, 2009 7:28:24 GMT -5
Heard on TSN recently that he has never played on a PO game, not even in junior. I think Martin set the bar too high for him & was never going to be satisfied with any offer. He has played 18 playoff games with the Chicago Wolves ..... Sorry about that, should have qualified my statement. In those 18 games in the AHL playoffs he did not have even a single point.  . ANd this was after 2 seasons in the NHL. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Apr 11, 2009 7:48:14 GMT -5
No trade. No playoffs. This is a clusterfudge if I've ever seen one. If they lose Bouwmeester to UFA (and I fully expect they will) it will be an enormous setback. This is going to happen very often. When you're in a playoff race you simply can't release your best elements in fear of losing them in the summer (unless that trade makes you better immediately). While it may make sense fantasy league/asset management wise, in the real world it sends the wrong message to your fanbase, your players and the rest of the league. For this team with this player (who, btw, has rebuffed every attempt to be re-signed) in the situation of not making the playoffs in 7 years, it was a gamble that will do untold damage to the franchise both on the ice and off. Another star player leaves Florida, but at least they got something for Luongo (and subsequently Bertuzzi turned into something else). If the Habs hadn't made the playoffs in 6 years and then Andrei Markov walked away without any compensation, we'd all be livid. As a person who wants to see Florida with a competitive team this makes me livid that they decided to take a gamble this big with a first year coach and a young team that never at any point in this season looked dominant. And they lost that gamble, deservedly so. I understand you have to play the game with the cards you're dealt, but this hand was misplayed and they'll end up with a worse hand because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 11, 2009 8:15:43 GMT -5
I didn't think trading Souray would have hurt the Habs as much as the brain trust thought. While I agree with you on the "at least get something for the guy about to walk away" front, I disagree here. Sure Streit was there and took over for Souray on the PP the following year, but there was no guarantee he was going to do that, nor that he would have been able to step it up in the playoffs [should we have made them]. Lots of speculation there. The "don't take a big risk" camp would have been on Bob had he traded Sheldon and it flopped. The "go for it" camp could only have rebutted "but at least he tried" [and the discussion would have gone on for pages]. Conversely, the "go for it" camp would have said "see" while the "don't take a big risk" camp would have cried "lucky" had it worked [and the discussion would have gone on for pages]. And I'm not firmly in the middle . . . I say that if a guy makes it plain he doesn't want to stay [and Jay-Bo made it plain; Sheldon was pretty close to plain; and Komi is probably gone with nothing to replace him with no matter how bad you think he is -- do you really want Breezer signed for another year?] then accede to his wishes and trade him -- get something -- anything -- after all, don't we have such a great farm system that anyone can step in? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 11, 2009 8:17:43 GMT -5
This is going to happen very often. When you're in a playoff race you simply can't release your best elements in fear of losing them in the summer (unless that trade makes you better immediately). While it may make sense fantasy league/asset management wise, in the real world it sends the wrong message to your fanbase, your players and the rest of the league. For this team with this player (who, btw, has rebuffed every attempt to be re-signed) in the situation of not making the playoffs in 7 years, it was a gamble that will do untold damage to the franchise both on the ice and off. Another star player leaves Florida, but at least they got something for Luongo (and subsequently Bertuzzi turned into something else). If the Habs hadn't made the playoffs in 6 years and then Andrei Markov walked away without any compensation, we'd all be livid. As a person who wants to see Florida with a competitive team this makes me livid that they decided to take a gamble this big with a first year coach and a young team that never at any point in this season looked dominant. And they lost that gamble, deservedly so. I understand you have to play the game with the cards you're dealt, but this hand was misplayed and they'll end up with a worse hand because of it. I heard Neil Smith on the FAN590 Friday night. He blamed this on Alan Cohen, the owner, who wanted to keep JB in order to make the playoff run. If you are a Panthers fan you have seen Luongo, Jokinen & now Bouwmeester leave. I believe Luongo also refused to re-sign. They are becoming something like the Expos were, feeders of fine talent to the NHL leaving nothing for their fans to cheer for. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 11, 2009 8:20:36 GMT -5
I didn't think trading Souray would have hurt the Habs as much as the brain trust thought. And I'm not firmly in the middle . . . I say that if a guy makes it plain he doesn't want to stay [and Jay-Bo made it plain; Sheldon was pretty close to plain; and Komi is probably gone with nothing to replace him with no matter how bad you think he is -- do you really want Breezer signed for another year?] then accede to his wishes and trade him -- get something -- anything -- after all, don't we have such a great farm system that anyone can step in? I haven't seen any evidence that Komisarek wants to leave. IMO, I would think he's the type of player that would lean toward staying. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 11, 2009 9:33:22 GMT -5
And I'm not firmly in the middle . . . I say that if a guy makes it plain he doesn't want to stay [and Jay-Bo made it plain; Sheldon was pretty close to plain; and Komi is probably gone with nothing to replace him with no matter how bad you think he is -- do you really want Breezer signed for another year?] then accede to his wishes and trade him -- get something -- anything -- after all, don't we have such a great farm system that anyone can step in? I haven't seen any evidence that Komisarek wants to leave. IMO, I would think he's the type of player that would lean toward staying. Just wild speculation on my part, from a $$$ point of view -- he'll get more elsewhere -- how much more is the question, and is it enough to pry him away. I think . . . probably. |
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Apr 11, 2009 11:20:22 GMT -5
If you want to believe PJ Stock (I know, bad example  ), he says that Komisarek will test the free agent market. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Apr 11, 2009 13:14:38 GMT -5
Komisarek will test the free agent market. As he should. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 11, 2009 17:54:50 GMT -5
Komisarek will test the free agent market. As he should. Komisarek could sign with Boston joining Ryder, Chara and Lucic. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 12, 2009 0:47:10 GMT -5
OUtside of Bob's reluctance to discuss contracts during the season (an utterly ridiculous position IMO), has there been anything to substantiate that Mike is not interested in re-signing with the Habs? Outside of the circus the team has been this year, of course.
I haven't heard of any such rumours, until the great disturber (Stock) postulated it. It seems he's turning into a better disturber off the ice than one.
Secondly, if Mike leaves, it would be one of those six of one half a dozen of the other things. We'd lose a competitive guy, but we'd gain a whole pile of puck possession. It might even out.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Apr 12, 2009 0:54:04 GMT -5
OUtside of Bob's reluctance to discuss contracts during the season (an utterly ridiculous position IMO), has there been anything to substantiate that Mike is not interested in re-signing with the Habs? Outside of the circus the team has been this year, of course. I haven't heard of any such rumours, until the great disturber (Stock) postulated it. It seems he's turning into a better disturber off the ice than one. Secondly, if Mike leaves, it would be one of those six of one half a dozen of the other things. We'd lose a competitive guy, but we'd gain a whole pile of puck possession. It might even out. Good God he was putrid tonight....I mean reeeeeeeeeaaaaaly putrid. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 12, 2009 0:54:43 GMT -5
Lots of speculation there. I qualified those remarks because no one can predict the future (except Mistress Wanda, who saves her visions for her 'special' clients, of which I am not one). Odds are, given our scouting, we would have aced the inevitable 1st round choice we would have gotten. That alone would be worth a chunk right now given that Souray's playing for someone else. So yes, when it seems inevitable that your guy is signing elsewhere, I trade him. I get something for him and it also sends the message to the rest of the team that if a guy isn't with you wholeheartedly right now, he doesn't belong. BTW, I watched Souray a bit tonight against Calgary. He played ok, but there was one play on the PP, where the right d man passed the puck over to Souray, who was on the left D. The pass wasn't the best and was heading to go over the blue line. But Sheldon could have gotten to it on his backhand and kept it in. Instead he had one of those brain cramps he had often with the Habs and skated backwards instead. The puck did indeed come back over the blue line and because he was skating backwards, he couldn't control it when pressured by the Flame PK'er, who couldn't believe his luck that Souray gave him so much time. Souray lost possession and the Flames had a shorthanded chance on net. No goal, but it brought back a lot of bad memories. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 12, 2009 0:59:33 GMT -5
Secondly, if Mike leaves, it would be one of those six of one half a dozen of the other things. We'd lose a competitive guy, but we'd gain a whole pile of puck possession. It might even out. Good God he was putrid tonight....I mean reeeeeeeeeaaaaaly putrid. Didn't see any of the game, Spiro. He's been Mr Concrete Hands and often Mr Butterfly Brain all year. No composure and wet spaghetti biceps. I can't get that vision of him swatting at the puck in the crease and missing it, and missing it, and Oh, there it goes in the net. Where'd that guy come from? Certainly not worth a dime over $2MM (and that's only because he has good intentions). You know what they say about the road to hell though. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 14, 2009 7:40:32 GMT -5
And what message does, "sorry, lost him for nothing" send? Every team has UFAs, every summer. You lose some you get some. I'm sure that if Martin could have made his team better by trading JayBo he would have done it but trading your best player for the sake of salvaging a pick or a prospect when you're knocking at the playoff door is suicide. Oh, and the unrealistic "but we'd have a better chance" at a cup doesn't wash with me. In all logic, if you keep your best player, you're a better team. Do you have a better chance at the cup? It happens quite often that teams who were not considered cup favorite actually went all the way. It's the beauty of the playoffs, anything can happen. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 14, 2009 9:14:35 GMT -5
And what message does, "sorry, lost him for nothing" send? Every team has UFAs, every summer. You lose some you get some. I'm sure that if Martin could have made his team better by trading JayBo he would have done it but trading your best player for the sake of salvaging a pick or a prospect when you're knocking at the playoff door is suicide. Oh, and the unrealistic "but we'd have a better chance" at a cup doesn't wash with me. In all logic, if you keep your best player, you're a better team. Do you have a better chance at the cup? It happens quite often that teams who were not considered cup favorite actually went all the way. It's the beauty of the playoffs, anything can happen. This is the way I look at too. I didn't see Souray as someone lost to free agency - I saw it more as a choice between Souray & Hamrlik. That being said, I do not understand this stance that some GMs have (Gainey, Lamoriello) to refuse to negotiate during the season. To me, it's an outdated strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 14, 2009 11:05:39 GMT -5
That being said, I do not understand this stance that some GMs have (Gainey, Lamoriello) to refuse to negotiate during the season. To me, it's an outdated strategy. It's not a perfect strategy but it does have some good points... #1 You don't alienate players in the season with negotations that could turn sour... #2 You don't create precedent by signing one guy and not the other. Say if Bob signs Komisarek during the season how does Koivu, Kovy, Tanguay feel? #3 You don't handcuff yourself for summer trade and signings. Say if Bob has his sight set on Vinny he needs a lot of cap leeway... |
|
. ANd this was after 2 seasons in the NHL.
), he says that Komisarek will test the free agent market.