|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 21, 2009 14:52:16 GMT -5
Huh? Zero goals and 5 assists in 14 playoff games on a team whose forwards you claim are/were faaar superior to the current team??? Good Lord, even Ed Ronan outscored him in the same number of games played with 2G 3 A...his plus/minus was better too (for whatever that's worth). No way I'd call that being instrumental...moreover, how can he be considered instrumental in that cup-run if he didnt even suit-up in the cup-finals? Because I'd guess that contributions off the ice and on the bench don't count for nothing. Well then, if you're gonna trade a Chris Chelios for off-ice/on-the-bench contributions three years after the fact, have at it. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 21, 2009 14:55:52 GMT -5
An interesting comparison, but Savy was passed his prime when got him. The same probably can't be said for Vinny. I thought so too, BLNY. As far as Vinny being passed his prime, that's hard to say. I was tickled seeing Savard as a Hab (despite hating the trade) and I'd surely feel the same if Vinny landed in Montreal...BUT...I wouldn't pull the trigger if it means losing Chelios Markov. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 21, 2009 15:10:31 GMT -5
Because I'd guess that contributions off the ice and on the bench don't count for nothing. Well then, if you're gonna trade a Chris Chelios for off-ice/on-the-bench contributions three years after the fact, have at it. Don't misread what I wrote. I wouldn't make the trade again. I just accept that contributions can be measured in more than just points. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 21, 2009 15:38:55 GMT -5
Well then, if you're gonna trade a Chris Chelios for off-ice/on-the-bench contributions three years after the fact, have at it. Don't misread what I wrote. I wouldn't make the trade again. I just accept that contributions can be measured in more than just points. Well but of course, and if that is what doc was refering to then I'll acknowledge that Savvy (whom I consider one of my most-favourite all-time players...have said so many times within HabsRus community as well) was indeed excellent in a supportive role (particularly behind the bench with Demers) but I sure as heck wouldn't categorize his role as "integral" which is what the focus was. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 21, 2009 16:42:56 GMT -5
Don't misread what I wrote. I wouldn't make the trade again. I just accept that contributions can be measured in more than just points. Well but of course, and if that is what doc was refering to then I'll acknowledge that Savvy (whom I consider one of my most-favourite all-time players...have said so many times within HabsRus community as well) was indeed excellent in a supportive role (particularly behind the bench with Demers) but I sure as heck wouldn't categorize his role as "integral" which is what the focus was. All I'm saying is Savvy WAS instrumental to that cup. Maybe not, in that playoffs stats wise, but once Carbo was handed the cup who did he gave it to ? Savvy brought something absolutely essential to the table. And then again, the Chelios/Savvy exemple, imo shows that you CAN trade a top dmen and still remain cup competitive (and cup winner) even if it is for a declining player (which isn't the case for Vinny, he's in his prime). IMO building a cup winning team happens after a whole bunch of various triggers (drafts, trades, signings, etc...) which eventually turn into THAT team. Pegging it on ONE element is pretty hard, if not impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jan 21, 2009 16:47:10 GMT -5
Wasn't Serge Savard ordered to make that Chelios trade by an angry management team? Could explain the return?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 21, 2009 16:48:59 GMT -5
Wasn't Serge Savard ordered to make that Chelios trade by an angry management team? Could explain the return? Yep. Corey didn't like the fact that they had to clean up after Chelios after his wild nights around town. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 21, 2009 17:03:50 GMT -5
Savvy was hurt towards the end of that playoff run too, and may have been hurt from the beginning of the 1993 playoffs. His back wasn't it? Don't forget, whatever he had in the tank when he got to Montreal was somewhat stifled in the more defensive structure that was our system. Where he would have been guaranteed first line minutes in Chicago, our forward depth was quite deep at that time.
As for trading Chelios and remaining a contender; I don't think it's a good comparison. Our defense, while not overly experienced at the time had a number of fine NHL caliber defenders. Schneider, Desjardins, Brisebois, Haller, Daigneault, Odelein, Ramage, was a pretty solid group. The top 4 could all skate very well. Most were good passers. And, they thought Schneider was the second coming of Chelios.
Was it the best trade? Perhaps not, but I don't see any Cup rings on Chris' fingers from his time in Chicago. He had to leave for Detroit before he got another ring. Chicago didn't get anything when he left either, so you could say Montreal won out between the two clubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 21, 2009 17:06:23 GMT -5
And now for a lyrical interlude ...
If I die of vanity
Promise me
Promise me
They would bury me
Some place, I don't want to be
You'll dig me up
And transport me
Unceremoniously
Away from
The swollen city-breeze
Garbage-bag trees
Whispers of Lecavalier?
And acts of enormity
And lower me
Slowly, sadly and properly
Get Ry Cooder
To sing me eulogy
At the hundredth anniversary
Where the great hype begins
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 22, 2009 16:24:17 GMT -5
Wasn't Serge Savard ordered to make that Chelios trade by an angry management team? Could explain the return? Yep. Corey didn't like the fact that they had to clean up after Chelios after his wild nights around town. Despite his partying ways, when it came time for a team vote on who should be captain after Gainey retired, it was a 50/50 split in the room between Carbo and Chelios. They spent the 1989-90 season alternating wearing the "C". Chelly was dealt the following offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 23, 2009 19:38:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 23, 2009 23:44:55 GMT -5
Wonder what kind of return a guy like Vinny would demand. I mean, the Price would almost certainly go up seeing how it's Montreal. Did I say Price? I meant, cost ... apologies guys.  |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 26, 2009 12:11:58 GMT -5
Now they're saying the NTC is a NMC. Which is it? If it's a no movement clause that will hardly quell any rumours come the summer. They'll be saying Montreal is on his short list.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 26, 2009 12:33:36 GMT -5
Now they're saying the NTC is a NMC. Which is it? If it's a no movement clause that will hardly quell any rumours come the summer. They'll be saying Montreal is on his short list. It doesn't matter. If Lecavalier's traded before July 1 the NTC/NMC doesn't exist anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 26, 2009 14:07:46 GMT -5
Seems to me that management was telling Vinny one thing and everyone else something completely different. Seeing the feedback from all corners they realize they have handled this the wrong way and are backtracking, especially from the fan base who are threatening to boycott the team if Vinny is moved. Vinny will be a member of the Lightning for the rest of his career. I promise to love, honor and obey will death do us part.......... I will uphold the constitution of the United States of America....... I never, not once, had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky..... We did not drop phospherous bombs.............. I am 100% NOT GUILTY............. This car is not capable of 80 MPH officer........... Why are we skeptical?  |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 26, 2009 14:26:14 GMT -5
Now they're saying the NTC is a NMC. Which is it? If it's a no movement clause that will hardly quell any rumours come the summer. They'll be saying Montreal is on his short list. It doesn't matter. If Lecavalier's traded before July 1 the NTC/NMC doesn't exist anymore. It does matter in that all the talk leading up to the weekend was that he was "locked in" and would be a Lightning till the end of that contract. With a NMC that simply isn't the case. He can veto anything, but if the team came to him part way through that contract and said we've got a deal in place for one of the teams on your list .... Things aren't as black and white as they were made out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 26, 2009 14:54:42 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. If Lecavalier's traded before July 1 the NTC/NMC doesn't exist anymore. It does matter in that all the talk leading up to the weekend was that he was "locked in" and would be a Lightning till the end of that contract. With a NMC that simply isn't the case. He can veto anything, but if the team came to him part way through that contract and said we've got a deal in place for one of the teams on your list .... Things aren't as black and white as they were made out to be. Players with NTC have been traded. All a no trade clause does is give the player the right of refusal to any team. A NMC, as far as I know, means the player can not be demoted to the minors to hide his contract, nor traded without his approval. Six to one, a half dozen to another as I see it ... |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 26, 2009 15:30:17 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. If Lecavalier's traded before July 1 the NTC/NMC doesn't exist anymore. It does matter in that all the talk leading up to the weekend was that he was "locked in" and would be a Lightning till the end of that contract. With a NMC that simply isn't the case. He can veto anything, but if the team came to him part way through that contract and said we've got a deal in place for one of the teams on your list .... Things aren't as black and white as they were made out to be. I think I'm missing something here. Lecavalier does not have a NTC or NMC at the moment. Lecavalier's new contract (which kicks in on July 1) does contain a NMC. If Lecavalier is traded before July 1 (when the new contract starts) the NMC on the new contract becomes void, the team acquiring has the choice of whether to honour it. Thus, he is not "locked in" to the contract with a new team. If he remains a Lightning until July 1, he is "locked in" for the 11 years of the contract and can veto any trade or demotion to the AHL. Though even that might not be true, depending on the structure of the NMC which might contain a pre-approved list of teams Vinny could be traded to or windows where he can be traded. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 26, 2009 15:52:32 GMT -5
It does matter in that all the talk leading up to the weekend was that he was "locked in" and would be a Lightning till the end of that contract. With a NMC that simply isn't the case. He can veto anything, but if the team came to him part way through that contract and said we've got a deal in place for one of the teams on your list .... Things aren't as black and white as they were made out to be. I think I'm missing something here. Lecavalier does not have a NTC or NMC at the moment. Lecavalier's new contract (which kicks in on July 1) does contain a NMC. If Lecavalier is traded before July 1 (when the new contract starts) the NMC on the new contract becomes void, the team acquiring has the choice of whether to honour it. Thus, he is not "locked in" to the contract with a new team. If he remains a Lightning until July 1, he is "locked in" for the 11 years of the contract and can veto any trade or demotion to the AHL. Though even that might not be true, depending on the structure of the NMC which might contain a pre-approved list of teams Vinny could be traded to or windows where he can be traded. What I'm saying is that up until the weekend everyone was saying NTC. An NTC is a lot different than an NMC. I know that clause doesn't kick in until July 1st with the new contract. Regardless, he's not as 'locked in' as was portrayed. Sure, he can veto a move when the new contract starts, but an NMC doesn't exactly close the door. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 26, 2009 16:08:21 GMT -5
I think I'm missing something here. Lecavalier does not have a NTC or NMC at the moment. Lecavalier's new contract (which kicks in on July 1) does contain a NMC. If Lecavalier is traded before July 1 (when the new contract starts) the NMC on the new contract becomes void, the team acquiring has the choice of whether to honour it. Thus, he is not "locked in" to the contract with a new team. If he remains a Lightning until July 1, he is "locked in" for the 11 years of the contract and can veto any trade or demotion to the AHL. Though even that might not be true, depending on the structure of the NMC which might contain a pre-approved list of teams Vinny could be traded to or windows where he can be traded. What I'm saying is that up until the weekend everyone was saying NTC. An NTC is a lot different than an NMC. I know that clause doesn't kick in until July 1st with the new contract. Regardless, he's not as 'locked in' as was portrayed. Sure, he can veto a move when the new contract starts, but an NMC doesn't exactly close the door. I would say it closes the door even more. A NMC is a NTC plus the option to veto any reassignment to an AHL affiliate. You can't even put the player on waivers. I still don't understand how a NMC doesn't exactly close the door. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 26, 2009 17:53:41 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that up until the weekend everyone was saying NTC. An NTC is a lot different than an NMC. I know that clause doesn't kick in until July 1st with the new contract. Regardless, he's not as 'locked in' as was portrayed. Sure, he can veto a move when the new contract starts, but an NMC doesn't exactly close the door. I would say it closes the door even more. A NMC is a NTC plus the option to veto any reassignment to an AHL affiliate. You can't even put the player on waivers. I still don't understand how a NMC doesn't exactly close the door. Because he's saying there are teams he'd consider instead of saying I'm here for the duration. There's an out for the team if they can work it out. With a NTC it's basically done. Difference of opinion I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 26, 2009 18:14:18 GMT -5
I would say it closes the door even more. A NMC is a NTC plus the option to veto any reassignment to an AHL affiliate. You can't even put the player on waivers. I still don't understand how a NMC doesn't exactly close the door. Because he's saying there are teams he'd consider instead of saying I'm here for the duration. There's an out for the team if they can work it out. With a NTC it's basically done. Difference of opinion I guess. I guess so. I don't get it, but whatever.  |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 26, 2009 18:24:27 GMT -5
The way I understand it, if he's traded or not, his NTC or NMC will come into effect on July 1st whether his new/old team likes it or not. You get the contract that comes with the player. What I'm unsure of is if he waives that clause and gets moved, does that take the clause out of the contract entirely or does it remain in force for the duration or until it's waived again. In real estate contracts, when you waive a clause, it's removed from the agreement permanently.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jan 26, 2009 18:38:12 GMT -5
From Article 11.8 in the CBA:
(a) The SPC of any player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not become effective until the time that the player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency. If the player is traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.
(b) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's buy-out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.
|
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jan 26, 2009 18:58:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification Red. That is odd that the NHLPA would agree to that. I can't imagine any GM, especially Gainey, volunteering to honour that clause after the fact on an 11 year deal. That certainly makes the trade more attractive to a degree and also makes me tend to think he could be traded by July 1st.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 26, 2009 20:03:49 GMT -5
Because he's saying there are teams he'd consider instead of saying I'm here for the duration. There's an out for the team if they can work it out. With a NTC it's basically done. Difference of opinion I guess. I guess so. I don't get it, but whatever. What's not to get? When his new contract kicks in, he's not as immovable as the media was saying up to the ASG. IMO that leaves the door open for continued rumors. Were it a straight NTC then come July 1, discussion would be over. |
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Jan 26, 2009 20:18:06 GMT -5
Oh boy...Look out Chris Dyment. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 26, 2009 21:12:14 GMT -5
Oh boy...Look out Chris Dyment. first the Sundin thread falls . . . then the Dykhuis thread . . . I had the wrong name. Only about 5 months to fill in the pages! |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 26, 2009 23:14:50 GMT -5
Interesting tidbit about Higgins... www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/hockey/200901/24/01-820538-des-hockeyeurs-froids-et-silencieux.phpIn short, a lot of strange hockey decisions over the years can be explained by how a player behaved off the ice (ie, puck-bunny hunting), and according to the author of the article, a certain name which keeps on popping up in trade rumours can't keep things reasonable, or at least reasonably discreet. Might also explain why he's not developing the way he could, if his focus isn't entirely on his game... When one considers how off-ice issues got Ribeiro, Svoboda, Chelios and who knows who else traded, it's worth considering. Might also be part of the reason Hainsey wasn't valued as highly as some would've thought. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 27, 2009 1:17:00 GMT -5
Interesting tidbit about Higgins... www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/hockey/200901/24/01-820538-des-hockeyeurs-froids-et-silencieux.phpIn short, a lot of strange hockey decisions over the years can be explained by how a player behaved off the ice (ie, puck-bunny hunting), and according to the author of the article, a certain name which keeps on popping up in trade rumours can't keep things reasonable, or at least reasonably discreet. Might also explain why he's not developing the way he could, if his focus isn't entirely on his game... When one considers how off-ice issues got Ribeiro, Svoboda, Chelios and who knows who else traded, it's worth considering. Might also be part of the reason Hainsey wasn't valued as highly as some would've thought. I think the Habs should use the Mike Keenan strategy. For example, when Kovalev was with the Rangers and staying on the ice way too long, Keenan kept him on for a Looooooonnnggg stretch and wore him out. So the Habs should stuff Higgins full of Viagra until it hurts to stand to attention and that should cure him. Warning to reader: I didn't look up the article, cause my French is pretty bad, so I'm extrapolating from PTH's comments and could be totally off base in my reasoning. Or not. |
|
