|
|
Post by blny on Jan 20, 2004 11:14:40 GMT -5
TSN.ca says this morning that Carolina could very well get a deal done today...and of course , the leafs are in the running!  www.tsn.ca/nhlTHF It wouldn't be an official rumour if it didn't involve the Leafs in some way. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Jan 20, 2004 11:31:16 GMT -5
If a deal goes down for something we could have easily matched or bettered without long-term repercussions, I will be VERY pissed at Bob Gainey. Beef Away ! How do yo know we need an O'Neill type of player ? I think we are doing pretty ok with Ryder and Dags as our top 2 right wingers for now. Good organizations find solutions internally first. All options have yet to be exausted. Hell, the club has yet to engage in any experimenation period this year for all the guys in Hamilton. Gainey is not taking on a major salary for next year. You can take that to the bank, not to mention people in the media know O'Neill to be a real head case. Have fun being mad at Gainey ! |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Jan 20, 2004 11:38:04 GMT -5
The Canes and Flyers just hooked up on a trade. Danil Markov for Justin Williams. What did I say about the Canes trading D for O ? I think O'Neill is not going anywhere. The Canes are likely to deal Defense for Offense. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 20, 2004 11:47:27 GMT -5
Well I don't think you can argue that a Jeff O'Neill type player would be very useful in Montreal. He's a tough, gritty winger who has been a consistent 30-goal man for the past 5 years. I don't know if he's a head case or if he has lost his touch, but at 28 years of age a player like that is worth close investigation.
And just because we are doing OK with Ryder and Dagenais as our top 2 RWs, doesn't mean that Gainey should not be looking to upgrade where he can. Call me crazy but I would take O'Neill over Dagenais in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by AH on Jan 20, 2004 12:20:30 GMT -5
Call me crazy but I would take O'Neill over Dagenais in a heartbeat. I wouldn't. Both guys have the same production right now. O'Neill seems to have lost his and Dagenais has gained his. AND ... O'Neill - $ 3.9 Million for a head case. Why do we need him again ? Dagenais - $ 550 K and excellent chemistry on existing roster / linemates . Why mess with that ? |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jan 20, 2004 14:14:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't. Both guys have the same production right now. O'Neill seems to have lost his and Dagenais has gained his. AND ... O'Neill - $ 3.9 Million for a head case. Why do we need him again ? Dagenais - $ 550 K and excellent chemistry on existing roster / linemates . Why mess with that ? How do we know that Jeff O'Neill is a headcase? Has it been confirmed by any major media personality, or is it just a rumour? As for the comparison between Dagenais and O'Neill, IMO, there is no comparison. The points that you bring up are great but think for a second that when O'Neill was Dags' age, he was a 41 goal-scorer and he followed this up with seasons of 31 and 30 goals respectively. Does he get paid a lot of money? Sure he does, because he's put up the numbers to deserve that kind of money. He would need a qualifying offer which would probably push his salary to a bit over $4M. At $4M+, O'Neill would still be making less than Koivu, Theo and Brisebois. I respect your opinion AH, and you make valid points, but IMO, the goal of a GM is to always look at ways to improve the team. This should be regardless of whether or not the team is winning or slumping. As a matter of fact, the best time to make a trade is when your team is winning because there's no pressure to do a deal. If Gainey were to make a trade right now, he would have leverage because of the way his team is playing. Yes, Jeff O'Neill is making a lot of money, but I'm sure Pierre Dagenais would be making the same type of money if he had the numbers that O'Neill has had over the past few seasons. Even though Dags is doing great so far, IMO, his long-term future with the Habs or the NHL is still a question mark. Therefore, since the goal is to always move forward, to me, when comparing the two players, Jeff O'Neill is an improvement over Pierre Dagenais. |
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Jan 20, 2004 14:39:51 GMT -5
I'd rather have Rod Brind'amour from Carolina then Jeff O'neill.
Hopefully they would take a couple of guys off our roster, one or two of Perreault, Dackall, Bullis, Sundstrom and a prospect, pick...
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 20, 2004 14:55:11 GMT -5
So would a lot of teams. With Francis retiring, the Canes are going to need someone to mentor Staal. I see Brind'Amour filling that role.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 20, 2004 15:45:37 GMT -5
I'd rather have Rod Brind'amour from Carolina then Jeff O'neill. Hopefully they would take a couple of guys off our roster, one or two of Perreault, Dackall, Bullis, Sundstrom and a prospect, pick... Brind'Amour has been one of the best two-way players in the league for years. However he'll be 34 before the start of next season. The deal you propose seems a bit onesided at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Jan 20, 2004 16:00:23 GMT -5
I think he's the kind of player that we should have gotten 2-3 years ago and could still have a good impact on the team now. He's big, uses the body and can put the puck in the net when he gets the chance. Perreault a roster/Pressbox player and a fairly good prospect is not giving too much. Freing up a couple of roster spots could give a young kid like Balej to come up too.
|
|
|
|
Post by AH on Jan 20, 2004 16:39:09 GMT -5
The points that you bring up are great but think for a second that when O'Neill was Dags' age, he was a 41 goal-scorer and he followed this up with seasons of 31 and 30 goals respectively. Does he get paid a lot of money? Sure he does, because he's put up the numbers to deserve that kind of money. He would need a qualifying offer which would probably push his salary to a bit over $4M. At $4M+, O'Neill would still be making less than Koivu, Theo and Brisebois. I respect your opinion AH, and you make valid points, but IMO, the goal of a GM is to always look at ways to improve the team. This should be regardless of whether or not the team is winning or slumping. As a matter of fact, the best time to make a trade is when your team is winning because there's no pressure to do a deal. If Gainey were to make a trade right now, he would have leverage because of the way his team is playing. Yes, Jeff O'Neill is making a lot of money, but I'm sure Pierre Dagenais would be making the same type of money if he had the numbers that O'Neill has had over the past few seasons. Even though Dags is doing great so far, IMO, his long-term future with the Habs or the NHL is still a question mark. Therefore, since the goal is to always move forward, to me, when comparing the two players, Jeff O'Neill is an improvement over Pierre Dagenais. But yo can't just ignore th $$ issue. We are going into a labor war and why take on a salary for next year. One of the great advantages for the Habs is that they are well positioned for a post CBA NHL when a cap will likely be implemented. No large contracts and tons of high impact young players coming through the system. Having payroll flexibility heading into the off-season FA period is key, especially in a down FA market like this year's. Besides the obvious $$ issues, this team is not a contender. I would be in favour of getting an O'Neill like player (not O'Neill specifically because I don't like him) if that player could put us over the top or bring us up to par with the other contenders. But that is not the case. For now, this team should continue to do what it is doing, i.e. a youth movement and growing a team. It's still too early in the re-build process to upset the team chemistry and team hierarchy. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 20, 2004 18:17:52 GMT -5
I think he's the kind of player that we should have gotten 2-3 years ago and could still have a good impact on the team now. He's big, uses the body and can put the puck in the net when he gets the chance. Perreault a roster/Pressbox player and a fairly good prospect is not giving too much. Freing up a couple of roster spots could give a young kid like Balej to come up too. Much as I like Brind'Amour, I wouldn't care to give up Bulis and Sundstrom and possibly more for him, as you suggested. That would leave the Habs short of defensive forwards, especially if Juneau retires and Dackell isn't re-signed. Besides, if next season is canceled, he'd be 35 when he reported to camp. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 20, 2004 18:29:25 GMT -5
One of the great advantages for the Habs is that they are well positioned for a post CBA NHL when a cap will likely be implemented. No large contracts and tons of high impact young players coming through the system. Having payroll flexibility heading into the off-season FA period is key, especially in a down FA market like this year's. Unfortunately, that is one of those common misconceptions about the Habs, that they will be better positioned than most, in any post-CBA, salary cap NHL. In reality though, they may be in one of the worst situations, depending on how things shake out. According to a recent Hockey News blurb, Montreal has the SECOND most number of players under contract after this season, with 14. Calgary has 15, then Montreal and Anaheim, then Philly with 13. Conversely, Boston only has 4 players under contract following this year, Colorado, Minnesota and St. Louis 5. So we will still be on the hook for a lot of salary, while other teams could be potentially freeing up a lot more than us. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 20, 2004 18:39:38 GMT -5
As to the inscrutable nature of what sort of new CBA will be agreed to, here's just one of the latest scenarios: IT'S A CAP, BUT NOT REALLY |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jan 20, 2004 20:14:02 GMT -5
Unfortunately, that is one of those common misconceptions about the Habs, that they will be better positioned than most, in any post-CBA, salary cap NHL. In reality though, they may be in one of the worst situations, depending on how things shake out. According to a recent Hockey News blurb, Montreal has the SECOND most number of players under contract after this season, with 14. Calgary has 15, then Montreal and Anaheim, then Philly with 13. Conversely, Boston only has 4 players under contract following this year, Colorado, Minnesota and St. Louis 5. So we will still be on the hook for a lot of salary, while other teams could be potentially freeing up a lot more than us. I tend to look at this the way AH does. I would not want to be in the Bruin's position, lock out or not , of only having 4 players signed going into the next seson. They could be faced with the loss of quality players like Rolston and then the task of building a team with free agents. |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Jan 20, 2004 22:17:49 GMT -5
Unfortunately, that is one of those common misconceptions about the Habs, that they will be better positioned than most, in any post-CBA, salary cap NHL. In reality though, they may be in one of the worst situations, depending on how things shake out. According to a recent Hockey News blurb, Montreal has the SECOND most number of players under contract after this season, with 14. Calgary has 15, then Montreal and Anaheim, then Philly with 13. Conversely, Boston only has 4 players under contract following this year, Colorado, Minnesota and St. Louis 5. So we will still be on the hook for a lot of salary, while other teams could be potentially freeing up a lot more than us. I read the same blurb. Actually it's 12 contracts (Koivu, Bulis, Ward, Kilger, Brisebois, Bouillon, Markov, Rivet, Komisarek, Dykhuis, Theodore, Garon). It used to be 13 until we got rid of Audette. Regardless of the number, there is not a SINGLE contract past next season. The total of those 12 contracts is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $ 25 million. How much do think the additional roster players coming up from the farm and the raises for Ryder, Ribeiro, Zednik, Dagenais, Begin, Langdon, Sundstrom, and Souray gonna cost ? Maybe another $ 15 million (and thats being generous). This way the team can ice a complete and competitive team for under $40 million. (Of the guys I mentioned, only Langdon is unrestricted - the rest are restricted free agents, which is another advantage). On the flip side, you have a team like the Islanders. I don't know how many contracts they have, but just the Yashin, Peca, and Hamrlik contracts will make up $20 million for the next TWO years. How would you like to be Mike Milbury trying to piece a team together looking for 20 other players for about $20 million. Good Luck !!! Sure, they may have less contracts, but look at the imbalance it presents to the roster. Or how about the Leafs. Sundin, Mogilny, and Nolan are all guaranteed $21 million for each of the next 2 seasons. Same as the Isles ... Good luck fielding a decent hockey team if there is a cap of $40 million with 55% of your money going to 15% of your roster. What I am trying to point out is that the guranteed contracts past this season on the Habs roster are better spread out than any of the teams I mentioned above. Taking on a contract like O'Neill's will hamper any payroll flexibility going into this summer's FA market, which is likely going to be on a downward trend. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jan 20, 2004 22:52:30 GMT -5
According to Joe Micheletti, the Islanders' color commentator, a rumor from Toronto has the Leafs interested in Jeff O'Neill.
|
|
|
|
Post by del on Jan 22, 2004 18:20:49 GMT -5
Ater sifting through all the posts here and jumping in late....all I have to say is ...Gainey won't be going after Jeff O'Neil any time soon, given all the circumstances and assessing Gainey's method of operation to date....it just does not seem likely!
|
|
|
|
Post by AH on Jan 26, 2004 11:41:23 GMT -5
My worst fear is indeed coming true. According to Spector's (as per Team 990 post game show from Saturday) Bob Gainey is in fact interested in O'Neill.
Going back to his interview on new year's eve, while mentioning the team needed a RH center, he in fact said that the team had 2 holes to fill, one of which was a RH center. I am assuming the other was a scoring power forward (a no brainer really). So O'Neill fits the bill. He is one of those types of players that can be had relatively cheap (for 2 prospects apparently) and is available. He is not ideal, but ...
I still don't want him. I would rather Bob go for Ryan Smythe, but he is going to be harder to pry than O'Neill.
Hossa Milroy for O'Neill.
Hainsey, Garon for Smythe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Jan 26, 2004 12:35:41 GMT -5
I like Smyth too but who would we have in Goal if Theo gets injured?
Hossa could be dealt but his stock is probably at his lowest right now.
It'll take someone in our Roster to pry O'neill. It did in Philly...
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 26, 2004 14:51:07 GMT -5
My worst fear is indeed coming true. According to Spector's (as per Team 990 post game show from Saturday) Bob Gainey is in fact interested in O'Neill. Going back to his interview on new year's eve, while mentioning the team needed a RH center, he in fact said that the team had 2 holes to fill, one of which was a RH center. I am assuming the other was a scoring power forward (a no brainer really). So O'Neill fits the bill. He is one of those types of players that can be had relatively cheap (for 2 prospects apparently) and is available. He is not ideal, but ... I still don't want him. I would rather Bob go for Ryan Smythe, but he is going to be harder to pry than O'Neill. Hossa Milroy for O'Neill. Hainsey, Garon for Smythe. I have no opinion either way, pro or con. I'm not privy to the nature of Jeff's attitude in the room. What I have noticed is a distinct increase in his ouput over the last two weeks. Paul Maurice was on the hotstove this Saturday passed and stated that one of the main reasons that O'Neill hadn't been producing lay on the shoulders of the former coach (Mo himself). He stated that Jeff was now getting time with Francis and those that could regulary feed him the puck. Maurice conceded that he placed too much emphasis on Staal's development. He also pointed out that the year Jeff scored 41, he had less than ten at the end of November or something. Jeff is a dynamic forward who is capable of scoring goals in bunches and in different ways. Does he need help defensively? Yes, but he showed his worth in the playoffs two years ago. The fact remains that we need more muscle up front and he would provide some for sure. If we could land him, or someone like him without sacrificing too much I'd consider it. Douper, you mention the likelihood of having to give up a roster player. I'm not so sure. Many of the rumours I've seen and read have Rutherford looking for two good prospects. I think we have some that might appeal to them, without hurting us down the road. If we can offload redundant skill, then it makes us better overall IMO. |
|
