|
|
Post by HabSolute on Oct 15, 2008 11:54:44 GMT -5
www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/RUMOUR-e3-Gaborik-and-a-Conditional-1-for-Higgins-and-McDonagh/1/17292Higgins and McDonagh for Gaborik and a 1st pick I know it's hockeybuzz and everything, but I just thought this was an interesting proposition and was curious about you guy's opinion. My first reflex was,....if Gaborik WANTS to be here...... I would do it for sure... I like Higgins but between him and Gaborik,...it's no contest.... McDonagh is a good prospect (so they say...) but is still what he is ...a good prospect. We have a lot of young player, but maybe it's not a bad idea to convert some of them for proven superstar... Can you imagine Gaborik in our line-up ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 15, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5
Well, if the salaries don't add up then the deal doesn't add up. Gaborik makes $7.5 million this year. Higgins makes $1.9 million. How many other players would it take to make up the total? After all Gainey only has less than a million left on his cap (according to http://www.NHLnumbers.com)
Gaborik is going to be an UFA at the end of the year. Add that to the list we already have and the deal doesn't make any sense.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 15, 2008 12:45:24 GMT -5
Can you imagine Gaborik in our line-up ? Nope. Gaborik is one of my favourite players and is an incredible talent, but adding him (and paying him in a contract ~$10M) makes little sense to me. It creates really tough decisions at the season's end, when at the moment we could conceivably keep most if not all of our desired UFAs (Tanguay, Koivu, Kovalev, Komisarek). If we add Gaborik, you're parting ways with not one, but two of those. Not to mention the cap ramifications Dis pointed out this season. It would be entertaining to possibly submit 5 all-stars (Price, Markov, Gaborik, Kovalev, Tanguay/Kostitsyn) but reality doesn't let this happen. Also not to mention my bias against having a scoring winger as your franchise player (though Price might still be ours). |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 15, 2008 15:36:37 GMT -5
Can you imagine Gaborik in our line-up ? Nope. Gaborik is one of my favourite players and is an incredible talent, but adding him (and paying him in a contract ~$10M) makes little sense to me. It creates really tough decisions at the season's end, when at the moment we could conceivably keep most if not all of our desired UFAs (Tanguay, Koivu, Kovalev, Komisarek). If we add Gaborik, you're parting ways with not one, but two of those. Not to mention the cap ramifications Dis pointed out this season. It would be entertaining to possibly submit 5 all-stars (Price, Markov, Gaborik, Kovalev, Tanguay/Kostitsyn) but reality doesn't let this happen. Also not to mention my bias against having a scoring winger as your franchise player (though Price might still be ours). Agreed - it doesn't add up cap wise - now or at season's end. BG will have enough on his plate without adding Gaborik to the mix. Eklund posts these rumors without thinking about the cap ramifications. A poster called him on it & his replay was something about waiving players to make room. That's a helluva lot of cap room to make.  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 15, 2008 15:38:09 GMT -5
Also something my friend mentioned. If we're really in the market for a franchise winger (and want to pay one as such) next offseason, Marian Hossa will be available again.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 15, 2008 15:43:32 GMT -5
Plus Gainey said most of the summer that he was looking for a centre. Mission accomplished for Eklund - tons of hits and comments on his blog.  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2008 16:01:26 GMT -5
Tough call. I don't like the idea of locking him up long term, as he has yet to prove he can stay healthy enough to produce with the consistency of an elite player. His career high is 83 points (through 8 seasons). Kovalev put up more points at 35 while earning half of what Gaborik will command as a free agent. I think that it would be a mistake to invest long-term in a a player so prone to injury.
Looking at this season, however, would his addition be enough to put us over the top? I think that we all agree that this is the year to go for it, and if Gainey can add an elite offensive talent without much damage to the roster or future, then he has to consider it. This year's team is good, and probably better than last year - but good enough to win four playoff rounds? Probably not with our current roster.
The thought of our top three lines (of this year), minus Kostopulous and plus Gaborik is pretty scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Oct 15, 2008 16:52:02 GMT -5
Too much for what we don't need. Who makes up this crap?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 15, 2008 17:49:11 GMT -5
Well the deal makes perfect sense .... if this was February.
If Minny hasn't moved him by the deadline, we would only be on the hook for about 20% of his cap-hit (which is only 6.33M). So we'd have to pay about 1.27M.
We currently have about 0.95M cap room .... so we would only have to remove a player that has 320k left on his contract in February to make room for Gaborik. Higgins, Pleky and Laraque are players that will have approximately 320k cap-space tags in February.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Oct 15, 2008 18:46:33 GMT -5
If Gaborik was a centre, definitely! But he's a winger, which is currently a strength on the club. I'd rather wait, (if the goal is to get Gaborik, or Hossa) for the off season and see if either could be "convinced" to sign with us... (yeah right! What am I thinking?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Bebop on Oct 18, 2008 14:28:26 GMT -5
Here is Kyle Turris's answer to your question "You want to move McDonagh, are you crazy???" www.radio-canada.ca/sports/hockey/2008/10/18/002-coyotes-turris-mcdonagh.shtml ''Ryan was my roommate last year. I can only say good things about him. The Canadiens should feel very fortunate to have him in their organization. He will become quite a defenceman in the NHL, a top pairing guy potentially.'' ''do not trade McDonagh! He can support the offence, he's good defensively and is perhaps the best skater I have been around. He skates like Scott Niedermayer, he's a graceful skater. He's very strong and a complete defenceman.'' '' he's a great leader. He'll do anything for the team.'' About not being on team USA last year''I was in shock when I learned he wasn't on their team. I told myself the USA would be easier to beat without him. They'll fix their mistake this year and I wouldn't be surprised if he's their captain.'' |
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Oct 18, 2008 15:23:08 GMT -5
How do you even add Gaborik's contract to this years team?
nhlnumbers has the Habs at approx 1.2 million in cap space.
Let's say we deal Higgins, a d prospect and a pick for Gaborik. That adds approx 4.6 million cap hit to our team this year, putting us 3.4 over the cap.
We drop Dandeneault to the minors, we are still 2.9 over. We drop Begin as well, we are at 1.9 over, but now down to a 21 man roster.
It just doesn't work unless another big ticket contract is also going out the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Oct 18, 2008 15:24:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Bebop on Oct 18, 2008 15:34:38 GMT -5
Interesting.......with Harding and Backstrom that would be a crowded crease. I have no ideal how this works for Montreal when you consider the salary cap. My only thinking is one of these teams are using the media by letting out rumors trying to get interest in their players by other teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Oct 18, 2008 15:40:49 GMT -5
Interesting.......with Harding and Backstrom that would be a crowded crease. I have no ideal how this works for Montreal when you consider the salary cap. Right...the Wild wanting Halak makes little sense. It really doesn't work under the cap. The Habs would HAVE to figure out a way to dump Dandeneault, Begin and likely Bouillon without adding almost any salary to make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Bebop on Oct 18, 2008 15:43:24 GMT -5
The player being mentioned are not good matches for either team.
My only thinking is one of these teams are using the media by letting out rumors trying to get interest in their players by other teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Oct 18, 2008 16:42:48 GMT -5
If RDS is talking about it and not just putting on the website it means there's some substance to the rumor.
When you look at the cap #'s we'd have to remove:
Higgins - 1,700
Halak - .775
Dandy -1,725
Xtra Cap Space: 2,515
for
gabby: 6,333
it's doable.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 18, 2008 16:50:42 GMT -5
Let's see . . . throw Breezy in for 87ยข . . . nope still doesn't do it . . . but makes my day.
Can't see it . . . until the trade deadline when cap space hardly makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 18, 2008 17:14:59 GMT -5
From a cap point of view, removing Halak does little, since any #2 goalie we get to replace him will make essentially as much (or more).
I'd love to add a guy with Gaborik's skill-set, but really, with the contracts given/acquired for Lang and Brisebois, in addition to the rest of the very full roster, there really aren't a lot of options for tweaking this lineup to free up cap space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 18, 2008 17:49:56 GMT -5
...in a sea of playmaking players, a finisher like Gaborik would make sense.
Higgins seems like a hefty price for a 1yr rental though...
|
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Oct 18, 2008 17:54:16 GMT -5
If RDS is talking about it and not just putting on the website it means there's some substance to the rumor. When you look at the cap #'s we'd have to remove: Higgins - 1,700 Halak - .775 Dandy -1,725 Xtra Cap Space: 2,515 for gabby: 6,333 it's doable. You still need to bring in a backup goalie, so forget saving any money by moving Halak. Im also not sure that we have as much cap space as you suggest. If your number is correct, then its doable if we also dump Begin. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 18, 2008 17:57:14 GMT -5
The cap isn't a brick wall, there are plenty of ways around it (waive, demote, long time IR, trades, etc...). Lou Lam's did them all...
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 18, 2008 21:58:12 GMT -5
...in a sea of playmaking players, a finisher like Gaborik would make sense. Higgins seems like a hefty price for a 1yr rental though... Higgins for a Cup? I'd do it. Higgins for a greater chance at a Cup? I'd still do it. Higgins for a 50/50 shot at a Cup? I'd be having second thoughts. But I think Gaborik takes us past the 50-50 mark. I'd still wait . . . if the team is gelling why break chemistry? |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Oct 18, 2008 23:57:50 GMT -5
Here is Kyle Turris's answer to your question "You want to move McDonagh, are you crazy???" www.radio-canada.ca/sports/hockey/2008/10/18/002-coyotes-turris-mcdonagh.shtml ''Ryan was my roommate last year. I can only say good things about him. The Canadiens should feel very fortunate to have him in their organization. He will become quite a defenceman in the NHL, a top pairing guy potentially.'' ''do not trade McDonagh! He can support the offence, he's good defensively and is perhaps the best skater I have been around. He skates like Scott Niedermayer, he's a graceful skater. He's very strong and a complete defenceman.'' '' he's a great leader. He'll do anything for the team.'' About not being on team USA last year''I was in shock when I learned he wasn't on their team. I told myself the USA would be easier to beat without him. They'll fix their mistake this year and I wouldn't be surprised if he's their captain.'' I agree, I would almost make McD the untouchable one of the D prospects. He got a shortie tonight to round up a goal and an assist last night...both while his team was losing to boot. The guy is having a great start to the season already. This likely will be his last NCAA season IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Oct 19, 2008 0:00:21 GMT -5
Higgins for a Cup? I'd do it. Higgins for a greater chance at a Cup? I'd still do it. Higgins for a 50/50 shot at a Cup? I'd be having second thoughts. But I think Gaborik takes us past the 50-50 mark. I'd still wait . . . if the team is gelling why break chemistry? It is a tough decision. But I would rather do it now than in February for two reasons: 1. Team chemistry can be had with only five games gone in a season much moreso than in late February. 2. Gaborik will cost a lot more in February. I am not really unhappy with our offense right now. I would be targetting a stud dman in a hearbeat though. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 19, 2008 6:34:28 GMT -5
idk, NWT [man that's a lot of letters].
Gaborik may cost more in February, but we really can't afford him now -- we'd have to move too much out and will have a more depleted team [even if we ask for Lou's help].
A stud dman, otoh . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 19, 2008 8:11:49 GMT -5
idk, NWT [man that's a lot of letters]. Gaborik may cost more in February, but we really can't afford him now -- we'd have to move too much out and will have a more depleted team [even if we ask for Lou's help]. A stud dman, otoh . . . Well, if we could afford Gaborik in February I think we might be able to afford Sundin instead. Might even be more affordable. Oh yeah ... the Rangers ... right. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 19, 2008 11:12:24 GMT -5
But I think Gaborik takes us past the 50-50 mark. I'd still wait . . . if the team is gelling why break chemistry? That's the question. We're doing good, we got chemistry, we have A LOT of offense... I don't think "wait" is an option though, opportunity is now, Gainey and Carbo know their team and they should know if they need someone like Gaborik or not. It is a tough decision. But I would rather do it now than in February . ...it's a question of opportunity. If Gaborik is available now, nothing says he will be available 3-4 months down the road. Other players might be available in Feb but from recent experience, we've had a lot of problems actually acquiring help at that time since the price to pay is usually too high for us. |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Oct 19, 2008 12:56:35 GMT -5
I agree with Doc. Players of Gaborik's class don't come available often. I agree that we don't really need him , but, if we could grab him at fair value or better and flip a current player that would become redundant as a result for say, a top four d-man. And thats when I woke up....
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 20, 2008 11:35:18 GMT -5
Interesting.......with Harding and Backstrom that would be a crowded crease. Exactly what I was thinking. Whenever a Habs rumor pops up, Halak is going the other way, whether it makes sense or not. |
|
