|
|
Post by AH on Jan 25, 2003 10:50:07 GMT -5
With the Berezin and Hackett trades, we now have an extra 3rd and an extra 4rth round pick in 2004. With Audette soon to banished somewhere, we can expect another mid-rounder in 2004. We also have a few extra other bodies who should be dealt for mid-rounders as well (Dackell, Dykhuis).
I was thinking the reason for this is that either teams are unwilling to part with 2003 picks due to this year being a very strong draft year, OR Savard is stock-piling these picks because heading into the 2004 CBA negotiations and the eventual implementation of a salary cap, teams will have to dump salary in order to get under the cap ... And the only way to achieve this (for teams like the Rangers) and not take on any other salary, is to acquire draft picks.
Coupled with the fact that after next season Gilmour (if he is back), Juneau, Chow, Perreault, Mckay, Dackell (if he not traded before then), and Quintal will all become UFAs and liberate approximately $ 15 million from the payroll, I am almost convinced that this is Savard's angle.
hmmmm ... could it be, or am I reaching a little here ?
|
|
|
|
Post by legaspesien on Jan 25, 2003 10:59:58 GMT -5
Your right on target didn't AS always said he had a 5 years plan...he had to restructure the outfit which he did at his best and with the market and budjet restriction he would be in a good position at that time
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 25, 2003 11:12:58 GMT -5
With the Berezin and Hackett trades, we now have an extra 3rd and an extra 4rth round pick in 2004. With Audette soon to banished somewhere, we can expect another mid-rounder in 2004. We also have a few extra other bodies who should be dealt for mid-rounders as well (Dackell, Dykhuis). I was thinking the reason for this is that either teams are unwilling to part with 2003 picks due to this year being a very strong draft year, OR Savard is stock-piling these picks because heading into the 2004 CBA negotiations and the eventual implementation of a salary cap, teams will have to dump salary in order to get under the cap ... And the only way to achieve this (for teams like the Rangers) and not take on any other salary, is to acquire draft picks. Coupled with the fact that after next season Gilmour (if he is back), Juneau, Chow, Perreault, Mckay, Dackell (if he not traded before then), and Quintal will all become UFAs and liberate approximately $ 15 million from the payroll, I am almost convinced that this is Savard's angle. hmmmm ... could it be, or am I reaching a little here ? Sounds like a plan, and a good one at that. Savard's not had an easy go of it; what with appeasing public lust and corporate desire for profits by making the playoffs (hence the motley crew of aging homeboys and castoffs), AND simultaneously laying the foundation for the club's future through shrewd drafting, player development and the accumulation of picks. Quite the juggling act. And it's all coming together. Chapeau à Mons. Savard! |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stanley on Jan 25, 2003 11:17:59 GMT -5
I would like him to do anything possible to get that 1st overall pick in 2004..a little like colorado did when Vinny was going to be the 1st draft pick..
I would like to see Ovechkin in an habs uniform..
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Jan 25, 2003 12:33:41 GMT -5
Your right on target didn't AS always said he had a 5 years plan I always suspected Savard had a little streak of red in him...  |
|
|
|
Post by habwest on Jan 25, 2003 12:44:26 GMT -5
Interesting observation AH. Makes a lot of sense.
Think you're a bit optimistic, tho, on the picks we'll receive for Audette, Dykhuis and Dackell. I think in the 6-8 range for the latter two and I think that Audette is untradeable for anything unless he miraculously starts scoring in Hamilton.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 25, 2003 12:45:10 GMT -5
I always suspected Savard had a little streak of red in him... Naturellement, il est directeur général du bleu-blanc-et- rouge. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 25, 2003 12:55:38 GMT -5
wow...if Savard is truly stockpilling 04 picks to package them up together(along with some players I assume) to get an excellent player that would be one master plan...
Keep in mind Clarke was able to get Oates AND Pitkanen because he traded for a ton of draft picks for the 2002 draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 25, 2003 13:57:26 GMT -5
wow...if Savard is truly stockpilling 04 picks to package them up together(along with some players I assume) to get an excellent player that would be one master plan... Keep in mind Clarke was able to get Oates AND Pitkanen because he traded for a ton of draft picks for the 2002 draft. I just hope Savard doesn't give Sundstrom a five year $15,000,000 extension because he sees something that we don't. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 25, 2003 14:36:54 GMT -5
hmmmm ... could it be, or am I reaching a little here ? I think you're seriously reaching. These aren't high level picks, so having more of them to deal doesn't exactly help much on the trade front. I mean, Colorado had 4 1st rounders to offer for Lecavalier, we had 2 firsts and more to offer for Kovalchuk, etc - multiple 1st or 2nd rounders have some value, but 3d round picks, while valuable come draft day, won't do much to help you trade up. Audette, Dackell and Dykhuis IMO have a net worth of one 8th rounder - ie, what we paid for Dackell. Audette has zero value, and Dykhuis is looking like waiver-wire fodder these days. I think some teams would take a chance on Dykhuis, but they won't give up anything, they'll just pick up his contract. GM's live a much more day to day life than we tend to realise, IMO. We see trends sometimes, but they don't always have much time to plan long term, there is always some work to do for the here and now. |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Jan 25, 2003 15:50:05 GMT -5
Well yeah, they are not high picks, but regardless, when GM's know that teams have to dump salary, there usually isn't a lot in return ... sort of like the Jagr trade, or even to a lesser extent the Chow trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jan 25, 2003 15:54:28 GMT -5
Are these really 'extra' picks? Don't they just basically replace the picks he lost when he got Berezin and CJ?
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 31, 2004 11:47:30 GMT -5
Habs traded this year's second rounder along with Balej, for Kovalev.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on May 31, 2004 12:29:16 GMT -5
I thought Dackell is playing overseas next year?
Never mind, just seen the date of the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on May 31, 2004 12:34:16 GMT -5
Habs traded this year's second rounder along with Balej, for Kovalev. I read this post before looking at the start of the thread and then I noticed it was preceded by a January 25, 2003 post. I thought LA Hab Fan was supposed to be the one who pulled old threads out of mothballs for no apparent reason. Then it dawned on me that it was neither news nor an interesting rumour, just another grumble about the Kovalev trade. By the way, it occurred to Gainey and Savard that the 2004 draft isn't supposed to be the greatest in recent memory. Let's see what the Rangers get before we stew over it. By contrast, the Habs had two picks in the second round last year, and Urquhart and/or Lapierre may make it to the NHL some day. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 31, 2004 15:14:54 GMT -5
Some research reveals that the Habs have, at the moment, the following entry draft picks for 2004:
1 - own
2 - own to NYR (Kovalev)
3 - own
3 - from SJ (Hackett)
4 - from CHI (Berezin)
4 - own to MIN (Dowd)
5 - own
6 - own
7 - own
8 - own
9 - own
|
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on May 31, 2004 16:36:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry, m. beaux-eaux, but this doesn't get you off the hook so far as I'm concerned. I still believe you dredged up this stale thread to get in one more knock at the Kovalev trade. If you were doing real "research" you would at least have provided the draft positions in each round (#18 in the first) and pointed out that the Chicago draft pick ceded to the Habs in the second round was much higher (probably about #35 overall, pending shuffling due to compensatory picks) than the one the Habs gave up (about #48). Last but not least you didn't discuss the rationale for moving up in 2004.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 31, 2004 18:07:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, m. beaux-eaux, but this doesn't get you off the hook so far as I'm concerned. I still believe you dredged up this stale thread to get in one more knock at the Kovalev trade. If you were doing real "research" you would at least have provided the draft positions in each round (#18 in the first) and pointed out that the Chicago draft pick ceded to the Habs in the second round was much higher (probably about #35 overall, pending shuffling due to compensatory picks) than the one the Habs gave up (about #48). Last but not least you didn't discuss the rationale for moving up in 2004. A better "counter" to the supposed criticism of the deal would be to say that if Kovy isn't signed, then we get a compensatory pick back... As to the whole draft positioning strategy, I just don't see it this year. In 2000 or 2001 we had a couple of first so it could have applied, but all we have this year is an extra 3d rounder and no 2nd rounder.... there's nothing much of a master plan here, if we wanted to give several lower picks we could have traded later years picks instead.... Colorado getting 4 picks in 98 to get Lecavalier (or at least try) - now that qualifies as a master plan. This year I just see us having a fairly normal year, with the normal number of picks in fairly normal positions... |
|
|
|
Post by montreal on May 31, 2004 21:32:17 GMT -5
A better "counter" to the supposed criticism of the deal would be to say that if Kovy isn't signed, then we get a compensatory pick back... As to the whole draft positioning strategy, I just don't see it this year. In 2000 or 2001 we had a couple of first so it could have applied, but all we have this year is an extra 3d rounder and no 2nd rounder.... there's nothing much of a master plan here, if we wanted to give several lower picks we could have traded later years picks instead.... Colorado getting 4 picks in 98 to get Lecavalier (or at least try) - now that qualifies as a master plan. This year I just see us having a fairly normal year, with the normal number of picks in fairly normal positions... Also a major point is that the comp pick would be in '05 which is shaping up to be another solid deep draft, verus the 48th pick which is where our 2nd would be now before any comp picks. I am not sure, but I assume the comp pick is the rangers 2nd rounder, which could end up being a high 2nd rounder, (say 35th-40th) but I'm not sure about who's comp pick we would get. |
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on May 31, 2004 21:58:26 GMT -5
Also a major point is that the comp pick would be in '05 which is shaping up to be another solid deep draft, verus the 48th pick which is where our 2nd would be now before any comp picks. I am not sure, but I assume the comp pick is the rangers 2nd rounder, which could end up being a high 2nd rounder, (say 35th-40th) but I'm not sure about who's comp pick we would get. Wherever that pick would fall, it'd be a lot higher than 48th. However, I have a hunch the Habs won't get it because they'll sign Kovalev. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 31, 2004 22:47:53 GMT -5
Also a major point is that the comp pick would be in '05 which is shaping up to be another solid deep draft, verus the 48th pick which is where our 2nd would be now before any comp picks. I am not sure, but I assume the comp pick is the rangers 2nd rounder, which could end up being a high 2nd rounder, (say 35th-40th) but I'm not sure about who's comp pick we would get. Compensatory picks are awarded by the league and added in. When Gretzky left STL they got something like the 33d overall pick, they didn't get anyone else's pick, it was just inserted in there, which is why the 2nd and 3d rounds don't always have the same number of players, year to year. and it's almost never just 30 players, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 1, 2004 13:51:17 GMT -5
Some research reveals that the Habs have, at the moment, the following entry draft picks for 2004: 1 - own 2 - own to NYR (Kovalev)3 - own 3 - from SJ (Hackett) 4 - from CHI (Berezin) 4 - own to MIN (Dowd)5 - own 6 - own 7 - own 8 - own 9 - own I'd trade them all for #1 in 2005. I'd throw in all our 2005 picks too. We already have a lot of depth. We're neck deep in depth. Now we could a superstar. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Jun 1, 2004 14:31:56 GMT -5
Let's be realistic.
Obtaining a high draft pick is unlikely.
It would mean giving up a key player.
With a supposedly better scouting system, the Habs will hopefully nab a few potential NHLers this summer.
Remember guys like Koivu, Theodore, Markov, Zednik, Ribeiro were not top 10 picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 1, 2004 15:43:36 GMT -5
By all means accumulate high draft picks, but I'd be more interested in the 2005 draft than the 2004. Let the chips fall where they may in 2004. At most I'd consider moving up a spot or 2 if it didn't involve giving up the 2nd round pick acquired from Chicago.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 1, 2004 15:44:50 GMT -5
I'd trade them all for #1 in 2005. I'd throw in all our 2005 picks too. We already have a lot of depth. We're neck deep in depth. Now we could a superstar. I assume you mean AFTER the lottery has been decided. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 1, 2004 17:51:12 GMT -5
By all means accumulate high draft picks, but I'd be more interested in the 2005 draft than the 2004. Let the chips fall where they may in 2004. At most I'd consider moving up a spot or 2 if it didn't involve giving up the 2nd round pick acquired from Chicago. I'm pretty sure it's a 3d rounder we got from Chicago, not a 2nd rounder. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 1, 2004 18:07:49 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it's a 3d rounder we got from Chicago, not a 2nd rounder. Yup, you're right. That makes a big difference. My mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 1, 2004 18:11:13 GMT -5
Some research reveals that the Habs have, at the moment, the following entry draft picks for 2004:
1 - own
2 - own to NYR (Kovalev)
3 - own
3 - from SJ (Hackett)
4 - from CHI (Berezin)
4 - own to MIN (Dowd)
5 - own
6 - own
7 - own
8 - own
9 - own
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 1, 2004 18:26:00 GMT -5
I assume you mean AFTER the lottery has been decided. I wish! After the lottery has been decided it will be hard to get the #1. Prior to the lottery, Chicago, Washington and Pittsburg would be much more amenable to trading a #1 pick than a sure thing Crosby. I see the Rangers fighting for the basement and Sather willing to deal to save his job. He's spent more money than a mistress with a credit card. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Jun 1, 2004 18:44:07 GMT -5
I wish! After the lottery has been decided it will be hard to get the #1. Prior to the lottery, Chicago, Washington and Pittsburg would be much more amenable to trading a #1 pick than a sure thing Crosby. I see the Rangers fighting for the basement and Sather willing to deal to save his job. He's spent more money than a mistress with a credit card. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the Rangers' situation. They dumped a load of payroll but they could just as easily load up again, especially since UFAs won't be asking for as much this time around. In addition, the Rangers still have a few stars. Somehow I don't see them finishing in the bottom 5. |
|
