|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 5, 2013 13:53:51 GMT -5
Eric Engels ( the Hockeybuzz Habs blogger) seemed quite sure that the Habs are talking with Columbus, not so much with the Avs.
On other sites I have seen a name like Nick Foligno mentioned. Take it FWIW.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 5, 2013 18:01:10 GMT -5
Nick's a pretty solid two-way player. Never really lived up his offensive potential. Cap hit is about the same as Bouqrue's. He is only 26.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 5, 2013 21:15:55 GMT -5
Leafs are saying "take this contract off our hands and give us a great d-man in return"? sorry, Gainey isn't GM any more. Thankfully. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 5, 2013 21:16:57 GMT -5
Eric Engels ( the Hockeybuzz Habs blogger) seemed quite sure that the Habs are talking with Columbus, not so much with the Avs. On other sites I have seen a name like Nick Foligno mentioned. Take it FWIW. Heard on the radio that Foligno could be on the move. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 5, 2013 21:41:36 GMT -5
Eric Engels ( the Hockeybuzz Habs blogger) seemed quite sure that the Habs are talking with Columbus, not so much with the Avs. On other sites I have seen a name like Nick Foligno mentioned. Take it FWIW. Heard on the radio that Foligno could be on the move. Cheers. he's a UFA after 2015 on a deal with a 3 mill. cap hit. Looks like a 30-40 point guy. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 6, 2013 9:12:27 GMT -5
According to a thread on HF, Engels is reporting that it could be Umberger that Montreal is targeting.
31yo, a couple of years removed from 20g+ and 50 points. $4.5 million cap hit through 2017. He's got 14pts in 28 games this year. He's a more expensive, and better performing, and slightly younger, Rene Bourque. His contract is a year longer.
There are Jackets fans in the thread in question who'd do RJ for Bourque and filler. Bourque and Pateryn gets you pretty close on cap hit. RJ gives us a physical presence on the LW with pretty good hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Dec 6, 2013 10:11:58 GMT -5
Bourque is $3.3 million for the next 2.5 years while Umberger is $4.6 million for the next 3.5 years. I agree Umberger is the better all around player and Bourque appears to be in the dog house.
I come back though to the question of what problem Bergevin is trying to solve. Is Umberger worth an extra $1.3 million in annual cap space and another contract year over Bourque? It seems at best a modest upgrade and at worst a lateral move but one that is more expensive.
The player in Columbus I'd be targeting is Wisniewski. As of today we only have 2 dmen under long-term deals, plus Subban who will be an RFA.
And our short-term flexibility has been SERIOUSLY undermined by the Briere contract. He just does nothing for us. Michael Bournival is a better all around player. Briere played 9 minutes last night because he serves almost no purpose other than depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 6, 2013 10:19:54 GMT -5
Bourque is $3.3 million for the next 2.5 years while Umberger is $4.6 million for the next 3.5 years. I agree Umberger is the better all around player and Bourque appears to be in the dog house. I come back though to the question of what problem Bergevin is trying to solve. Is Umberger worth an extra $1.3 million in annual cap space and another contract year over Bourque? It seems at best a modest upgrade and at worst a lateral move but one that is more expensive. The player in Columbus I'd be targeting is Wisniewski. As of today we only have 2 dmen under long-term deals, plus Subban who will be an RFA. And our short-term flexibility has been SERIOUSLY undermined by the Briere contract. He just does nothing for us. Michael Bournival is a better all around player. Briere played 9 minutes last night because he serves almost no purpose other than depth. I agree when it comes to Umberger. What's the point? Bourque did score in his last game & I thought he might play last night because of the size factor. Bergevin should be targeting someone younger & a little cheaper. As for Briere, he had few options & should not have been signed for more than a season. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 6, 2013 11:16:00 GMT -5
I think the point to this move would be to balance things out in the lineup. We've got a glut on the RW and are a little thin on the LW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 6, 2013 12:14:17 GMT -5
I think the point to this move would be to balance things out in the lineup. We've got a glut on the RW and are a little thin on the LW. Left Wing Pacioretty Excellent Galchenyuk Excellent Bourque Good Moen Good Briere Good Hudon Scoring potential Reway Scoring potential Bozon Scoring potential Crisp Tarnasky We have two excellent wings to chew up minutes and contribute, three to pick from for a third line and three up and coming kids. In todays cap environment it is unrealistic to hope for three excellent left wings. I believe we should avoid blockbusters and stick with what we've got. As critical as I want to be, our leadership is doing a good job and the team is getting better. HaVE TO BE FAIR. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 6, 2013 14:55:26 GMT -5
This assumes that Galchenyuk stays there. He won't be. What if the deal included DD, or there was another deal? Jackets fans cite that Jarmo Kekkelainen may want Eller, as he drafted him while with the Blues. Conceivable notion.
Bourque is really a RW, historically had his best production from the RW, and scores his goals from that side. I don't think we can say Hudon or Reway are guaranteed to be ready any time soon either. If they are, you move Umberger at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Dec 9, 2013 18:40:39 GMT -5
I wanted Umberger a few years back...actually he is having a decent season on a bad BJ team... was always a Hab killer...his contract is a bit steep but he'd probably flourish on the third line with the talent here?  My question is what is MB's plan is he trying to win now? ...they are being coached like it. Of course you want to win but are you trying to develop a team that is ready to win a few years down the road?...then maybe you don't go down the RJ road. I want the Habs to do as best they can but not a the expense of our kids who still are shuffled up and down the lineup in terms of minutes. This team is caught to far in between vets who can't carry the mail everyday and kids who can more often but don't get the ice consistently. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 9, 2013 20:02:40 GMT -5
I also don't think Bergevin likes Bourque's hockey IQ. You can put up with a weak spot in a player if he's strong in many other areas, but I don't think you can say that of Bourque. He's not a good passer, he's not especially fast. He can hit, but he misses checks probably as often as he hits his man (lack of agility). All, in all Bourque has made a pretty good career out of two 27 goal seasons. He wasn't even a big scorer in college, where you'd expect bigger numbers. Three good seasons in his career, out of 8 and a third. Normally I'd give him a mulligan in the early years as he develops and acclimates to the NHL, but since he was a college guy, he was already 24 for most of his first NHL season.
I wonder if he got his degree and what it was in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 9, 2013 21:49:00 GMT -5
I also don't think Bergevin likes Bourque's hockey IQ. You can put up with a weak spot in a player if he's strong in many other areas, but I don't think you can say that of Bourque. He's not a good passer, he's not especially fast. He can hit, but he misses checks probably as often as he hits his man (lack of agility). All, in all Bourque has made a pretty good career out of two 27 goal seasons. He wasn't even a big scorer in college, where you'd expect bigger numbers. Three good seasons in his career, out of 8 and a third. Normally I'd give him a mulligan in the early years as he develops and acclimates to the NHL, but since he was a college guy, he was already 24 for most of his first NHL season. I wonder if he got his degree and what it was in? I think Pierre Gauthier was just happy to remove Mike Cammalleri's salary off the books when he acquired Rene Bourque. He saved a few million/season on the cap in that deal. Cammy's $6 million cap hit was reduced to ~$3.3 million (nhlnumbers.com). I guess they figured it was worth it at the time. I know of at least one Calgary fan who didn't mind taking back Cammy, so long as Bourque was going the other way. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 9, 2013 22:31:44 GMT -5
Cammy's the better player if you don't mind him bailing out on checks, something that drove us nuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 10, 2013 10:51:55 GMT -5
Rumours are saying that the Islanders are talking to the Habs, Grabner, Bailey and Clutterbuck in play.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 10, 2013 11:16:23 GMT -5
Rumours are saying that the Islanders are talking to the Habs, Grabner, Bailey and Clutterbuck in play. a quick comparison shows DD = Bailey, Bourque/Prust/Moen = Grabner and > Clutterbuck. cap hits are pretty much the same except Bourque v Clutterbuck, 3.3 v 2.75 though Clutterbuck is one year longer. would we be a better team with these three [or any of them]? I'd wait until the trade deadline and rethink, though I'd do Bailey for DD now |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Dec 10, 2013 11:44:31 GMT -5
I think we'd lose a big part of our identity trading Prust.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 10, 2013 12:20:59 GMT -5
I wonder if he got his degree and what it was in? He did ... Consumer Behaviour and Business |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 10, 2013 12:50:36 GMT -5
;)I understand Consumer behaviour too---- buy, buy, buy. We have something in common.
That's an anomoly, as he must have some smarts, or at least a good work ethic, or his dad built a wing at the University. Doesn't jive with his hockey IQ, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Dec 10, 2013 15:09:50 GMT -5
Trading Prust would be a big mistake, imo. The Rangers haven't been the same without him and I suspect the Habs would miss him equally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 10, 2013 15:45:31 GMT -5
I think we'd lose a big part of our identity trading Prust. Trading Prust would be a big mistake, imo. The Rangers haven't been the same without him and I suspect the Habs would miss him equally. I agree, guys. Like Duster pointed out, look at what happened to the Rangers when they traded Prust. I think they also lost more of their identity when they traded for Nash, too. Prust,et al, were core players with the Rangers and I don't think they've fully recovered from losing those guys. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 10, 2013 18:26:40 GMT -5
Trading Prust would be a big mistake, imo. The Rangers haven't been the same without him and I suspect the Habs would miss him equally. Acquiring Prust was one of Bergevin's best moves. He won't move him. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 19, 2013 8:39:43 GMT -5
Evander Kane may or may not be on the block, depending on who you ask. Rumored asking price is four parts, though what those parts are is hard to say. Nonetheless, I will speculate!
1) Young, bonifide NHL player with potential, if not star potential. From our roster players that fit that bill are Galchenyuk, Eller, Pacioretty and Gallagher.
2) Top prospect. We don't really have any forwards that fit that bill, so I'll say either Beaulieu, Tinordi or Fucale. Maybe Hudon sneaks into that discussion if he has a great World Juniors.
3) Serviceable NHL player, probably for salary cap purposes. Forget Briere, but maybe Bourque or Moen.
4) First round pick.
That's a lot to give up for one player but Kane represents everything we need in this franchise, albeit wrapped up in a potential headcase. But if he gets his head straight, and he's only 22, him and Pacioretty would give Montreal a power-forward duo they haven't seen in like forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Dec 19, 2013 11:14:05 GMT -5
Kane's numbers are not as good as Patches. If Wpg wanted more than that, I'd tell them to go away. As far as Galchenyuk is concerned, no thanks, the Jets need to add for me to move. Just too much potential and he looks too good at 19 to trade. Eller and Gallgher, I wouldn't be adding all that much. No four pieces anyways. Maybe Eller and a pick or prospect. Gallagher and a pick or prospect. That's it. You want more, go elsewhere. The Habs are not in the business of building other hockey teams except their own. It is getting obvious that Kane doesn't want to be there, the rumours are everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Dec 19, 2013 11:55:26 GMT -5
Anybody but Gal(2), Patch, Subban, Price and Emelin.
|
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Dec 19, 2013 18:16:45 GMT -5
Evander Kane may or may not be on the block, depending on who you ask. Rumored asking price is four parts, though what those parts are is hard to say. Nonetheless, I will speculate! 1) Young, bonifide NHL player with potential, if not star potential. From our roster players that fit that bill are Galchenyuk, Eller, Pacioretty and Gallagher. 2) Top prospect. We don't really have any forwards that fit that bill, so I'll say either Beaulieu, Tinordi or Fucale. Maybe Hudon sneaks into that discussion if he has a great World Juniors. 3) Serviceable NHL player, probably for salary cap purposes. Forget Briere, but maybe Bourque or Moen. 4) First round pick. That's a lot to give up for one player but Kane represents everything we need in this franchise, albeit wrapped up in a potential headcase. But if he gets his head straight, and he's only 22, him and Pacioretty would give Montreal a power-forward duo they haven't seen in like forever. Too much for Kane. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 19, 2013 19:59:16 GMT -5
I'd consider Eller, Beaulieu, either Bourque or Moen and our first. Eller is the wild card. He might turn into Eric Staal lite, or a better scoring Jay McClement. In the first scenario, we don't do that well, in the second we make out like Bandits. We wouldn't really miss Beaulieu, Bourque or Moen. We'd miss Eller's skating, hitting and all around play and we'd miss a draft choice which will likely be in the 15-20 range. Kane can be a beast, though, if you can get his head screwed on right. Better than Patches. And what a pair. How does a team defend against that same type of player putting in 35-40 minutes a game? I'd do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 19, 2013 20:06:02 GMT -5
I think it's too much for a wild card, though I do like Kane. High risk high reward though.
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Dec 19, 2013 20:14:50 GMT -5
Too high a price. No way we bite if that is what they are asking.
|
|
