|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Mar 18, 2004 7:07:21 GMT -5
Asham's not having a terribly good year on the island. Last I checked he had 20 points and he was minus 12 or something.
Robidas, on the other hand, seems to be playing pretty well on a dreadful Hawks team.
Chouinard is showing that he probably doesn't and won't belong in the NHL.
And Dyment, who has the distinction of being the subject of Habsrus' longest thread ever, is barely on the radar screen.
Does anybody miss any of these guys? I always liked Asham, but in retrospect it was a minor deal and he's not likely to be more than a passable third line winger. And Robidas, much as you have to admire his spunk, is probably on par with the Cube. I might even give the cube the edge because he hits more.
The only deal involving a young player that could really bite us is the one for Kovalev. Balej could easily end up being as productve an offensive player as Perezhogin, Kastitsyn, or Higgins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yeti on Mar 18, 2004 7:46:20 GMT -5
I agree JV but I think only Perezhogin should be considered in a comparison with Balej.
Kast is perceived as possibly a franchise winger and he"s also bigger and could play the game like Zed. Higgins may end up with less goals than Balej but he brings everything else to the table (defense, leadership, grit, etc.). Scouts from other teams, if you remember what Brunet wrote about interviewing some of them, placed Kasts and Higgins above Balej in their evaluation (as recently as last month).
|
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on Mar 18, 2004 8:25:39 GMT -5
Let's free our minds. It's obsessive to worry about Balej now or in the future. He's gone. It's similar to lamenting who shoulda-coulda been picked in the last draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 18, 2004 9:27:06 GMT -5
Returns on:
Asham and a 5th: One year of discontented bitterness, and a million dollar buy-out. But you're probably right. Not like we need a robust, cheap, 25 year old with 12 goals already. We have Pierre Dagenais.
Dyment: Nothing. We packaged (I believe) the pick we got for him, to move up 12 or 15 spots in the draft. In the meantime, we had Sylvain Blouin playing top 4 minutes for the Hamilton Bulldogs defense last year. Incidentally, Dyment won the Calder Cup, defeating in the final, ironically enough, the Hamilton Bulldogs.
Robidas: Nothing, even though Dallas offered us a 7th rounder.
Chouinard: I don't think anybody has ever said the return on Chouinard wasn't a good one.
Nobody has ever thought that these guys were going to come back and bite us. The whole debate was to whether or not assets were being maximized. In the case of Chouinard, they were. A 2nd round pick was an excellent return for a guy who had no future with us.
But why was Dyment dumped, when we eventually had a great need for an AHL defenseman? Which apparently we still do, as we just traded Blouin for, wait for it, an AHL defenseman.
Dallas offered a draft pick for Robidas, yet Savard refused, even though everybody and his brother knew Robidas was going to be selected in the waiver draft. If you know you are going to lose something, wouldn't it be better to get something, anything, for it?
Asham was a gamble that failed. It was a gamble that in my opinion, never had a chance at succeeding, and I said as such at the time. We had too many players who were similar to Czerkawski, and not enough players who were similar to Asham. That whole "team" thing. Given the holes on the team at the time, and its needs, Asham should have either been kept, or traded in a package for an upgraded version of himself. Not for a guy who was interchangeable with a bunch of other guys on already on the team.
Sorry man, you're not convincing me. As far as I am concerned, with the exception of Chouinard, these guys were thrown away for nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Mar 18, 2004 9:52:25 GMT -5
Returns on: Sorry man, you're not convincing me. As far as I am concerned, with the exception of Chouinard, these guys were thrown away for nothing. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. What did you think I was trying to convince you of? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 18, 2004 10:21:42 GMT -5
Ironically, the Isles have Czerkawski AND Asham and they're still trailing the Habs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Mar 18, 2004 13:47:22 GMT -5
Robidas: Nothing, even though Dallas offered us a 7th rounder. Dallas offered a draft pick for Robidas, yet Savard refused, even though everybody and his brother knew Robidas was going to be selected in the waiver draft. If you know you are going to lose something, wouldn't it be better to get something, anything, for it? Sorry man, you're not convincing me. As far as I am concerned, with the exception of Chouinard, these guys were thrown away for nothing. In the case of Robidas and the waiver draft, does Montreal not get to protect an additional player after they lose one in the draft? If they had taken a 7th round pick for Robidas, someone else would have been exposed to the draft. Let's say it might have been Beauchemin. In this case, Montreal keeps Beauchemin but forfeits a 7th round pick. In this example, Montreal protects the depth in its organization and it is a good move. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 18, 2004 13:56:56 GMT -5
In the case of Robidas and the waiver draft, does Montreal not get to protect an additional player after they lose one in the draft? If they had taken a 7th round pick for Robidas, someone else would have been exposed to the draft. Let's say it might have been Beauchemin. In this case, Montreal keeps Beauchemin but forfeits a 7th round pick. In this example, Montreal protects the depth in its organization and it is a good move. I was thinking the same thing but one thing didn't make sense to me. I am unsure of the numbers involved so bear with me. If they are only allowed to protect 14 say (just a number I made up). And they have Robidas left exposed in the waiver draft. It doesn't make a difference if they traded him ... cause they are still only allowed to protect 14. And if they traded him I presume they would have protected the same 14 as they did with him on the roster. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 18, 2004 14:18:30 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing but one thing didn't make sense to me. I am unsure of the numbers involved so bear with me. If they are only allowed to protect 14 say (just a number I made up). And they have Robidas left exposed in the waiver draft. It doesn't make a difference if they traded him ... cause they are still only allowed to protect 14. And if they traded him I presume they would have protected the same 14 as they did with him on the roster. Does that make sense? Not quite. If they make an even-up trade of a player they would otherwise protect, then the new player would take his place. If they trade a player not on their protected list for a player they want to keep they would have to leave someone else exposed UNLESS the player they trade for is a prospect who doesn't have to be protected because he he doesn't have enough pro experience to be waiver draft-eligible. Of course, trading for a draft choice also wouldn't affect their protected list. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 18, 2004 14:42:14 GMT -5
But if by losing Robidas, they got to protect someone else, then they were effectively able to protect 15 instead of 14....
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 18, 2004 14:55:21 GMT -5
But if by losing Robidas, they got to protect someone else, then they were effectively able to protect 15 instead of 14.... My hypothetical was based on the presumption that they were offered that 7th rounder by Dallas. So keeping Robidas under those circumstances makes no sense to me, but I guess management didn't see the benefits of gaining a 7th rounder. I understand Blaise's post completely, this was my feeling all along, but MC how do they protect 15 instead of 14 by ridding themselves of Robidas? If they are only able to protect 14 and they leave Robidas unprotected they are still protecting 14. And if they trade him for a draft pick, I presume since they left him unprotected, they would protect the same 14. |
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Mar 18, 2004 16:49:57 GMT -5
One prospect that comes to mind even though not traded is Matt Carkner who is having a solid season with the Barons. But you can't win em all and sometimes mistakes are made. I liked Asham but at the time I felt it was a good idea to move him for a guy that appeared in the all star game and had hit the 70 point mark. In hindsight it didn't work oh well.
Robidas I was pissed we lost him, but I feel the waiver rule will bite us again. I think Robidas is the better of the guys you listed and could have a solid career.
Chewy looks lost from the little I've seen of him with the Wild, but there's still a lot of skill there. Who knows what will happen.
Dyment had an injury this year I think and has missed a major part of the season. Never thought too highly of him but we'll see what he does down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 18, 2004 16:55:23 GMT -5
A team can lose a maximum of 3 players in the waiver draft. Every time a player is taken, the team that loses him can add one more player to the protected list. It is possible for a strong, deep team to avoid losing a single roster player by cooking up predraft deals with the weaker teams. Let's say team #1 takes Traverse, team #2 takes Blouin, and team #3 takes Dykhuis. Gainey rewards them after the waiver draft by ceding prospects that don't have to be protected or else the famous "future considerations."
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 18, 2004 18:06:29 GMT -5
A team can lose a maximum of 3 players in the waiver draft. Every time a player is taken, the team that loses him can add one more player to the protected list. At the time of the waiver draft, we were hearing a lot about this rule in the media, yet when we lost Robidas, we didn't get to protect anyone else - the obvious candidate being Bouillon, who was taken next. I think there is no such rule, and that some MTL media confused some waiver rules with some of the expansion-draft rules. After we lost those 2D, no one, anywhere, talked about that rule again... That would be too blatant, even for the NHL. some of the no-trade back rules would prevent this from happening. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 18, 2004 18:11:06 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. What did you think I was trying to convince you of? Well, given that these guys are the ones some of us tend to talk about when talking about AS's non-youth movement, it sure seemed like an attempt at showing that AS had done good... |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Mar 18, 2004 18:26:41 GMT -5
LET'S HOPE BALEJ TURNS OUT TO BE A DUD TOO ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 18, 2004 18:42:43 GMT -5
LET'S HOPE BALEJ TURNS OUT TO BE A DUD TOO ;D NO! INSTEAD LET'S HOPE YOU STOP POSTING IN ALL-CAPS BEFORE WE START DELETING THOSE POSTS NO MATTER THE CONTENT. CAPICHE? |
|
|
|
Post by legaspesien on Mar 18, 2004 20:02:03 GMT -5
And Dyment, who has the distinction of being the subject of Habsrus' longest thread ever Is it^possible that it was beet not to long ago with the Kovalev trade to MTL |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 18, 2004 21:16:27 GMT -5
At the time of the waiver draft, we were hearing a lot about this rule in the media, yet when we lost Robidas, we didn't get to protect anyone else - the obvious candidate being Bouillon, who was taken next. I think there is no such rule, and that some MTL media confused some waiver rules with some of the expansion-draft rules. After we lost those 2D, no one, anywhere, talked about that rule again... That would be too blatant, even for the NHL. some of the no-trade back rules would prevent this from happening. No, no, they wouldn't trade them back, they simply wouldn't draft the designated players. They would take duds. Later on, the strong team would give thenm prospects from Hamilton, say, in exchange for unimportant players on the weak team. |
|
|
|
Post by Strummerman on Mar 18, 2004 22:05:03 GMT -5
NO! INSTEAD LET'S HOPE YOU STOP POSTING IN ALL-CAPS BEFORE WE START DELETING THOSE POSTS NO MATTER THE CONTENT. CAPICHE? hey Im not a child so dont treat me like one it was an accident capiche |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 18, 2004 22:42:30 GMT -5
No, no, they wouldn't trade them back, they simply wouldn't draft the designated players. They would take duds. Later on, the strong team would give thenm prospects from Hamilton, say, in exchange for unimportant players on the weak team. Hmm, seems expensive in terms of time, effort, goodwill from other GM's, and prospects, to keep some lesser lights around - but I see that it could be done. Given that usually all that's available at the waiver draft is junk (even from the top teams), I don't see any reason to go that route though. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Mar 19, 2004 7:06:26 GMT -5
I remember when Columbus came into the league, Houle made a deal with with Doug Maclean which allowed him to leave Weinrich unprotected in the expansion draft. Montreal sent a second round pick to Columbus in exchange for their undertaking not to select Weinrich. Instead of Weinrich, Columbus selected goaltender Fred Chabot, which protected Montreal from losing anybody else.
This sort of stuff goes on all the time, but as PTH notes, when you're talking about players you'd only get a 7th or 8th round pick for, it's sometimes not worth it. So you send a later round pick somewhere to keep Stephan Robidas? And you still end up exposing some other, similar player because, unlike the expansion draft, the waiver draft involves 29 other teams and you can lose (I believe) 3 players. Savard could have taken a 7th rounder, shipped Robidas, and still lost two or even three players. So he could have ended up with a seventh rounder and lost 4 players (including Robidas). To him, it simply wasn't worth it. And in the end, we got one of the guys selected back (the Cube). I still don't understand the criticism of this move. And it seems to me that those who criticize it don't even recall who else would likely have to have been te next best player exposed once you got beyond Robidas, Bouillon and whoever else was not on our protected list. Ward? Garon? Ribeiro? I can't remember, but it probably wasn't someone like Dykhuis (who wasn't protected). Since they weren't protecting Robidas, somebody higher on the list would slip down a notch into the unprotected realm if he was shipped. For a seventh rounder?
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 19, 2004 7:09:54 GMT -5
Dwyer. Traverse. Blouin.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Mar 19, 2004 7:20:21 GMT -5
Two of those guys weren't even around when Robidas went, and Traverse was never protected anyway. Actually, though, if you're not going to protect Robidas anyway, and you ship him, you don't actually have to "add" anyone to the unprotected list. But the fact remains, you could still lose 4 guys and only end up with a 7th rounder. The alternative is you lose three guys and you get no pick. To me, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Plus, Robidas was strictly AHL depth on the right side, being behind Brisebois, Quintal, Rivet and Komisarek. Never mind that Rivet's now on the left. And Robidas clearly couldn't handle the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 19, 2004 7:45:25 GMT -5
Of course you're right. I was just taking out the trash.
Savard:
- Robidas (no great loss)
+ Gratton (invaluable in Hamilton)
Gainey:
+ Bégin (the human alarm clock)
+ Langdon (everyone's big brother)
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 19, 2004 8:13:21 GMT -5
Out of all these guys, I'd gladly take Asham back. I'd much rather have him than Dackell or Sundstrom for a 3rd/4th line role. The rest of them I don't really care for.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Mar 19, 2004 9:17:33 GMT -5
I don't know if Asham's as solid defensively as Sunny or Dackell, to be quite honest. But there's no question Asham could have looked good somewhere on our roster.
Czerk, as it happens, wasn't washed up or useless at all. It just wasn't a good fit: the lineup, the coach...any of it. On paper, it wasn't a bad deal, but in the context, it wasn't very good at all.
I still think Czerk got less time and opportunity than Audette, and for a variety of reasons he should have gotten more.
The good news is everybody's still employed....Audette, Asham, Czerk and...Savard.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 19, 2004 9:29:08 GMT -5
The difference between a waiver draft and an expansion draft is that in the waiver draft you don't have to expose anyone. For example, if you have a team full of rookies, then nobody is eligible for the draft. Even if Savard traded Robidas for a pick, he still could have protected everyone else. He just would have had one less person eligible for the draft. If you look at the eligibility lists for that year, you will see that the Phoenix Coyotes only made 2 players available: www.hockeynut.com/0203/waiverlists2002.htmlSo even if Savard traded Robidas for a pick, his draft list wouldn't have changed, and he would have still lost both Bouillon and Robidas. He just would have recuperated at least a pick in return. The other flaw in his plan, was that he assumed that he couldn't draft anybody off another team. Say he does lose three players, worst case scenario, then all he has to do is poach somebody off another team's roster. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 30, 2004 11:57:48 GMT -5
hey Im not a child so dont treat me like one it was an accident capiche USING CAPITALS IS THE MOST VILE THING SINCE THE BERTUZZI ATTACK. IT"S EQUIVALENT TO INVADING A COUNTRY TO LOOK FOR WMD! IT HURTS MY SENSIBILITIES.  LOL! CAPICHE |
|
|
|
Post by The Habsome One on Mar 30, 2004 12:57:33 GMT -5
hey Im not a child so dont treat me like one it was an accident capiche How could it be an accident? Do you not see what you type? |
|
