|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 1, 2005 3:09:23 GMT -5
But by all accounts, Hossa had a very strong camp. If that wasn't good enough to make the team then he should have been traded before camp. Of course, if Hossa had been traded for someone younger and Plekanec and Perez had had lousy camps it would have backfired.... Exactly. Hossa had a strong camp, but the other contenders obviously had stronger ones. But you couldn't be sure that they'd be that good until this point in camp. So, assuming for argument's sake that Gainey could have gotten more for Hossa a month or 2 ago (and I realise that's a big assumption), was it worth losing that rather than "gambling" on our top prospects actually being our top prospects and risking being stuck with the likes of Dags and Sundstrom? |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Oct 1, 2005 3:23:02 GMT -5
First of all, may I be the first to say (or at least a small group of Sunny supporters) that I feel that Sunny's worth is way under-rated. He is smart, albeit small, but should be able to work wonders in the new NHL. He can skate, has good hockey sense, has a decent shot, and doesn't rely on bulldozing or obstructing players to prevent them from scoring. Hmm, seems like the mould of the new third liner in the new NHL. Glad we have three of the best.
Hossa had some immediate chemistry with Bonk. Sunny had some past proven history with CJ and BG. This is not funky stuff that gets fans off their seats, but it is what keeps coaches and GM's happy for a season.
|
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on Oct 1, 2005 4:24:16 GMT -5
I don't know why so many are dissing this trade. Gainey and Julien have seen enough of Hossa, in the past and at this year's camp, and enough of our other kids, to know that Hossa wasn't going to be part of our 23 man roster. They could have made space for him by sending Perezhogin (or Higgins) and Latendresse down, but Gainey has made it clear that the roster will be decided based on merit and not contracts and waiver status. So Gainey is true to his word, again. Hossa wasn't going to make the team. Why lose him for nothing? Before camp, many people thought that Hossa's trade value was nil, and instead Gainey got a young character and grit guy that will lead in Hamilton or provide depth on the 4th line in the bigs. It's easy to say that Gainey should have got a defenseman, but there wasn't a bidding war for Hossa's services. Gainey took the best that he could get, a guy that provides a dimension that few others in the organisation possess. Hossa hasn't been worth more than a Garth Murray at any time during Gainey's tenure, and it's quite possible that he never will be either. Good asset management in my opinion, not bad. I like the deal. Great recap, agree wholeheartedly. Can you please do something about the snow on my deck please? Pour water on it and turn it into an ice rink? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 1, 2005 5:22:37 GMT -5
I never put much stock in Hossa's training camps and callups. In this way he reminds me of Kilger. For a a couple of weeks he actually looks like he has upside.
Let's face it. He will be 24 in a couple of weeks & has less than one NHL season of games behind him. Waiting a little longer wouldn't make a difference because cases like Ryder are rare.
If Jeff Friesen and Jeremy Roenick can go for picks what did you honestly expect Gainey to get for Marcel Hossa?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 1, 2005 7:16:42 GMT -5
I don't know why so many are dissing this trade. Gainey and Julien have seen enough of Hossa, in the past and at this year's camp, and enough of our other kids, to know that Hossa wasn't going to be part of our 23 man roster. They could have made space for him by sending Perezhogin (or Higgins) and Latendresse down, but Gainey has made it clear that the roster will be decided based on merit and not contracts and waiver status. So Gainey is true to his word, again. Hossa wasn't going to make the team. Why lose him for nothing? Before camp, many people thought that Hossa's trade value was nil, and instead Gainey got a young character and grit guy that will lead in Hamilton or provide depth on the 4th line in the bigs. It's easy to say that Gainey should have got a defenseman, but there wasn't a bidding war for Hossa's services. Gainey took the best that he could get, a guy that provides a dimension that few others in the organisation possess. Hossa hasn't been worth more than a Garth Murray at any time during Gainey's tenure, and it's quite possible that he never will be either. Good asset management in my opinion, not bad. I like the deal. But if the roster is to be set on merit and not contract and waiver status, why trade Hossa now, when even Gainey admitted just days ago that the market is very poor? Hossa was having one of the best camps of any of the young players. At least as good as Higgins or Perezhoghin, and probably better. But because of his contract and waiver status, and the fact that they didn't want to keep him around despte his good camp, meant he had to be dealt now, when his value was low. How is that a meritocracy? And speaking of, I have heard that Streit has a clause that says he is guaranteed 30 NHL games this year. How is that a meritocracy? How are Vandemeer's or Hainsey's one-way deals meritocracies? The truth is, no team can operate purely on a meritocracy, never could, and most certainly can't now in a cap world. Which is why this trade puzzles me. Why trade Hossa now? Why not use the waiver status of Higgins and Perezhoghin to your advantage? Keep Hossa around, and if he has a good start to the season, trade them, when the hot-shot rookies from other teams fade, and they look for help. If he has a bad start, he'll clear waivers and help Hamilton more than Murray will. Or at the very least, he can be traded for a Murray type player then. On the Team 990 yesterday, they were talking to pro scout Pete Mahovolich, and Hartford Wolfpack broadcaster something-brother-of-Marc-Crawford. Both said Murray was a below average skater with slow feet. Both expressed some surprise that he was traded for a guy like Hossa. I wasn't a huge Hossa fan, but unless they saw something in Murray that nobody else saw, it seems like poor asset management to me... |
|
|
|
Post by insomnius on Oct 1, 2005 7:56:39 GMT -5
But if Hossa had stayed on the big club and then pulled his disappearing act like he has consistently throughout his career at all levels and on all continents, then where would BG be?
Stuck with someone untrade-able who would be lost for nothing on waivers - it could be said that Hossa's value was not going to get any higher...
But I WAS at the Tampa game where the Bonk - Hossa - Latendresse line was dominant and I kind of wish that line had been given more opportunities - the Habs haven't had a line with everyone over 6'2" in a long time (if ever) and all three had decent hands and hockey sense...
Oh well...
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 1, 2005 8:04:20 GMT -5
Well, having had a night to sleep on it (and dream of Hossa beating Rivet to the outside and whistliing a wrister beyond Théodore's feebly flapping glove hand), I must say that I agree with many of the rationales posted in this thread regarding the trade.
My take (echoing the thoughts of others in some instances)—in no particular order:
• The Habs save money - Murray's contract is surely less than Hossa's (a bit of extra cash to spend on Koivu's long-term contract, which will be negotiated come January...)
• Murray did not have to clear waivers (he had already been demoted to Hartford before the deal), whereas Hossa...
• Murray is making less than $75K in the AHL and thus will not have to pass waivers in order to be called up.
• The Rangers are stuck with Hossa—if they want to send him down we get dibs on the waiver claim.
• Hossa, one assumes, was having a camp inferior to that of Higgins, Plekanec, Perezhogin, and Latendresse in the eyes of the coaches and GMs.
• Hossa's future development did not project to be greater than the players mentioned above.
• Latendresse right now projects to be better than Hossa right now.
• Murray provides a skillset that the Habs find in short supply on their depth chart. Sauf Bégin et Ferland, who do they have with his specific qualities?
• Murray provides a degree of insurance should Bégin's similarly kamikaze style put him on IR for an extended period. In his three full NHL seasons Bégin has played 52, 50, and 51 games. He has had three or four operations on the same shoulder.
• Murray has "character".
All that notwithstanding, how this trade plays out will have our attention and will surely be grist for a future thread or two on this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Oct 1, 2005 9:34:16 GMT -5
In getting to the final number, Gainey likely saw Hossa as a cut. Anticipating that he would have to clear waivers (and from what I understand, claiming a player on waivers means you have to keep the player on the main roster), he solicited responses from the bottom feeders (NYR), and they bit. Its not difficult being a top 14 forward on the NYR these days. Cutting his losses, he accepted some utility in Murray.
What makes this surprising is the conflicting message through camp that Hossa was settling in nicely on the third line with Bonk. Its always tough to give up on a 1st rounder, but in the overall scheme of things, it was the only real option for BG, given the upside of all the others competing for roster spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 1, 2005 9:50:30 GMT -5
I don't know why so many are dissing this trade. Gainey and Julien have seen enough of Hossa, in the past and at this year's camp, and enough of our other kids, to know that Hossa wasn't going to be part of our 23 man roster. They could have made space for him by sending Perezhogin (or Higgins) and Latendresse down, but Gainey has made it clear that the roster will be decided based on merit and not contracts and waiver status. So Gainey is true to his word, again. Hossa wasn't going to make the team. Why lose him for nothing? Before camp, many people thought that Hossa's trade value was nil, and instead Gainey got a young character and grit guy that will lead in Hamilton or provide depth on the 4th line in the bigs. It's easy to say that Gainey should have got a defenseman, but there wasn't a bidding war for Hossa's services. Gainey took the best that he could get, a guy that provides a dimension that few others in the organisation possess. Hossa hasn't been worth more than a Garth Murray at any time during Gainey's tenure, and it's quite possible that he never will be either. Good asset management in my opinion, not bad. I like the deal. But if the roster is to be set on merit and not contract and waiver status, why trade Hossa now, when even Gainey admitted just days ago that the market is very poor? Hossa was having one of the best camps of any of the young players. At least as good as Higgins or Perezhoghin, and probably better. But because of his contract and waiver status, and the fact that they didn't want to keep him around despte his good camp, meant he had to be dealt now, when his value was low. How is that a meritocracy? And speaking of, I have heard that Streit has a clause that says he is guaranteed 30 NHL games this year. How is that a meritocracy? How are Vandemeer's or Hainsey's one-way deals meritocracies? The truth is, no team can operate purely on a meritocracy, never could, and most certainly can't now in a cap world. Which is why this trade puzzles me. Why trade Hossa now? Why not use the waiver status of Higgins and Perezhoghin to your advantage? Keep Hossa around, and if he has a good start to the season, trade them, when the hot-shot rookies from other teams fade, and they look for help. If he has a bad start, he'll clear waivers and help Hamilton more than Murray will. Or at the very least, he can be traded for a Murray type player then. On the Team 990 yesterday, they were talking to pro scout Pete Mahovolich, and Hartford Wolfpack broadcaster something-brother-of-Marc-Crawford. Both said Murray was a below average skater with slow feet. Both expressed some surprise that he was traded for a guy like Hossa. I wasn't a huge Hossa fan, but unless they saw something in Murray that nobody else saw, it seems like poor asset management to me... Has anyone ever accused Bob of being a great trader? We all agree that he brings a mature a steady hand to the table but no one ever accused him of trying to outdo Sammy...not yet. Managing your young assets is more important then ever. Trading them away because you are out of options is what makes one an AVERAGE gm.  ~~~~~~~~~~~~ The "offensive" potential of this player, frankly, sucks. In 206 AHL/NHL games, he has a TOTAL of 26 goals and 56 points. On the other hand he has 486 penalty minutes and he is not even consider any kind of "fighter". A Jason Ward WITHOUT the so called scoring "talent"?  www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=31004This must be one of those "better then nothing" trades because frankly, we got nothing. Great trade...... |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 1, 2005 10:17:26 GMT -5
[quote author=badcompany board=general thread=1128110870 post=1128169002
[/quote]
On the Team 990 yesterday, they were talking to pro scout Pete Mahovolich, and Hartford Wolfpack broadcaster something-brother-of-Marc-Crawford. Both said Murray was a below average skater with slow feet. Both expressed some surprise that he was traded for a guy like Hossa.
[/quote]
This sounds like Ranger people talking up their end of the trade. The teams making the deal are always going to rationalize it.
In another post ( I think it was FL) there is a link that points out that Murray finished 2nd in the CHL skills competition for fastest skater. Lets see how things turn out on the ice before taking the word of a somewhat biased opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Oct 1, 2005 10:21:31 GMT -5
One more (far fetched) hypothesis:
Hossa, despite showing the stuff we could expect from a good third liner (and I agree with Insomnius as I really wished they had tested more that Hossa-Bonk-Lats line), might have other kind of problems less visible to us outsiders :
- maybe he had attitude or behavioural problems (e.g., inflated ego, extreme timidity, drug addiction, poor interpersonal skills, stubbornness, necrophilia or whatever) that hindered his relations with teammates and/or coaching staff. Maybe he was marginalized and not part of what we call a good team chemistry. Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 1, 2005 10:31:56 GMT -5
I have visions of him shining on a line with Jagr. Gainey was the guy who traded away Iginla remember ....
I just hope that this doesn't screw up Bonk. Hossa and Bonk were shining, now Bonk has to get used to someone else and probably someone with less offensive talent as Hossa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 1, 2005 10:33:31 GMT -5
One more (far fetched) hypothesis: Hossa, despite showing the stuff we could expect from a good third liner (and I agree with Insomnius as I really wished they had tested more that Hossa-Bonk-Lats line), might have other kind of problems less visible to us outsiders : - maybe he had attitude or behavioural problems (e.g., inflated ego, extreme timidity, drug addiction, poor interpersonal skills, stubbornness, necrophilia or whatever) that hindered his relations with teammates and/or coaching staff. Maybe he was marginalized and part of what we call a good team chemistry. Maybe. Maybe. But then again, no other team would know about it either so why the giveaway? At least TRY to give him a chance and see if someone gives us something more in the short term future. You would be suprised how far a kids value rises if he scores a few. Also..... The new rules suit Hossa to a tee. He is the "right" type of player to shine (or at least not rust) with the new rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 1, 2005 10:43:16 GMT -5
I have visions of him shining on a line with Jagr. Gainey was the guy who traded away Iginla remember .... Unfortunatly, I do remember and that is why I hold my breadth every time I hear about a Gainey trade. The argument by many would be that he had to give away Iggy to get Joe but Iggy had 21 goals the year after the trade. Joe was a short term trade deal to win the cup. Gainey gave up a LOT in Iggy and in the long term, there was and is no contest. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 1, 2005 10:56:43 GMT -5
Has anyone ever accused Bob of being a great trader? We all agree that he brings a mature a steady hand to the table but no one ever accused him of trying to outdo Sammy...not yet. He certainly has not earned the "Trader Bob" label, but neither has he swung deals, in over a decade as an NHL GM, that have hurt his teams. June 27, 2004 - Traded defenseman Stephane Quintal to the Los Angeles Kings for future considerations. June 26, 2004 - Acquired center Radek Bonk and goaltender Cristobal Huet from the Los Angeles Kings for goaltender Mathieu Garon and a 2004 third-round draft pick. March 4, 2004 - Acquired center Jim Dowd from the Minnesota Wild in exchange for a fourth-round selection in the 2004 NHL Entry Draft. March 2, 2004 - Acquired right wing Alexei Kovalev from the New York Rangers for right wing Jozef Balej and a 2004 fourth-round draft pick. * July 14, 1998 — Acquired C Aaron Gavey for C Bob Bassen. December 9, 1995 — Acquired Joe Nieuwendyk for Corey Millen and Jarome Iginla. Nov. 29, 1995 — Acquired C Robert Petrovicky for C Dan Kesa. Jan. 31, 1995 — Acquired LW Iain Fraser for a 1996 draft choice. Mar. 5, 1993 — Acquired C Brent Gilchrist for C Todd Elik. Dec. 16, 1993 — Acquired LW Jim McKenzie for a 1995 4th round draft choice. Feb. 17, 1996 — Acquired D Darryl Sydor and a 1996 5th round draft choice for RW Shane Churla and D Doug Zmolek. June 24, 2000 — Acquired D Brad Lukowich and 3rd and 9th round draft choices in 2001 for C Aaron Gavey, LW Pavel Patera, a 2000 8th round draft choice and a 2002 4th round draft choice. June 26, 1999 — Acquired the 32nd and 96th overall draft choices in the 1999 NHL Entry Draft for the 28th overall choice. June 21, 1997 — Traded second round draft choice in 1998 for Philadelphia’s third round draft choice in 1997. June 22, 1996 — Acquired D Sergei Zubov for D Kevin Hatcher. Aug. 20, 1996 — Acquired RW Sergei Gorbachev for a fifth round draft choice in 1998. June 20, 1999 — Acquired third round draft choice in 1999 for G Roman Turek. Apr. 7, 1995 — Acquired LW Greg Adams, C Dan Kesa and a fifth round draft choice in 1995 for RW Russ Courtnall. Based on his past track record the Hossa trade should turn out to be a safe bet.  |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Oct 1, 2005 10:57:27 GMT -5
A lot of the reaction here reminds me of the Balej trade.... people hated that one too, but it's worked out very well for us.
Murray is a guy who in 2002 was a part of Canada's WJC team; a guy who played in the Prospects Game, a guy who played great defense and was Captain of his junior team, Regina.
Hossa was a guy who looked flashy and talented for five games and then disappeared for twenty - the ultimate frustrating player. He had 80% of the talent of his brother and 10% of the heart. I won't miss him one bit.
An hfboards.com user's scouting report (he watched Murray play in Regina often):
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 1, 2005 10:58:38 GMT -5
I have visions of him shining on a line with Jagr. Gainey was the guy who traded away Iginla remember .... Unfortunatly, I do remember and that is why I hold my breadth every time I hear about a Gainey trade. The argument by many would be that he had to give away Iggy to get Joe but Iggy had 21 goals the year after the trade. Joe was a short term trade deal to win the cup. Gainey gave up a LOT in Iggy and in the long term, there was and is no contest. How many Cups has Iginla helped the Flames win? That, after all, is the object of the whole exercise, n'est-ce pas? |
|
|
|
Post by TheCaper on Oct 1, 2005 11:45:08 GMT -5
Managing your young assets is more important then ever. Trading them away because you are out of options is what makes one an AVERAGE gm. Buy high, sell low – the secret of success. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 1, 2005 11:48:03 GMT -5
I just hope that this doesn't screw up Bonk. Hossa and Bonk were shining, now Bonk has to get used to someone else and probably someone with less offensive talent as Hossa. Bonk is a, er, big boy. He'll be fine. A line of Bulis-Bonk-Latendresse doesn't sound tea-bags at all. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Oct 1, 2005 11:51:47 GMT -5
Bulis-Bonk-Sundström I foresee a lot of missed scoring opportunities , but a first-class checking line able to shut down the best trios in the league on a regular basis  Cheer up, season begins in 4 days! |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Oct 1, 2005 11:55:55 GMT -5
A line of Bulis-Bonk-Latendresse doesn't sound tea-bags at all. I secretly wish for Latendresse to outplay Sundström and take his spot on the third line. Ryder-Koivu-Kovy Zednik-Ribeiro-Dagenais Bulis-Bonk-Latendresse Begin-Plekanec-Sundström Higgins-Vandermeer (or Ivanans) |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 1, 2005 12:15:50 GMT -5
I have visions of him shining on a line with Jagr. Gainey was the guy who traded away Iginla remember .... Unfortunatly, I do remember and that is why I hold my breadth every time I hear about a Gainey trade. The argument by many would be that he had to give away Iggy to get Joe but Iggy had 21 goals the year after the trade. Joe was a short term trade deal to win the cup. Gainey gave up a LOT in Iggy and in the long term, there was and is no contest. No contest? Nieuendyk won the Conn Smythe & Dallas won the Stanley Cup. That's what is all about. Until Calgary wins the Cup with Iginla in the lineup, this is a win for Gainey. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 1, 2005 12:19:37 GMT -5
One more (far fetched) hypothesis: Hossa, despite showing the stuff we could expect from a good third liner (and I agree with Insomnius as I really wished they had tested more that Hossa-Bonk-Lats line), might have other kind of problems less visible to us outsiders : - maybe he had attitude or behavioural problems (e.g., inflated ego, extreme timidity, drug addiction, poor interpersonal skills, stubbornness, necrophilia or whatever) that hindered his relations with teammates and/or coaching staff. Maybe he was marginalized and part of what we call a good team chemistry. Maybe. Maybe. But then again, no other team would know about it either so why the giveaway? At least TRY to give him a chance and see if someone gives us something more in the short term future. You would be suprised how far a kids value rises if he scores a few. Also..... The new rules suit Hossa to a tee. He is the "right" type of player to shine (or at least not rust) with the new rules. The guy is almost 24 and he has almost being showing us something for 4-5 years. How long are we supposed to wait. What you are seeing in training camp is the same tease we always get from Hossa. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Oct 1, 2005 12:19:54 GMT -5
One more (far fetched) hypothesis: Hossa, despite showing the stuff we could expect from a good third liner (and I agree with Insomnius as I really wished they had tested more that Hossa-Bonk-Lats line), might have other kind of problems less visible to us outsiders : - maybe he had attitude or behavioural problems (e.g., inflated ego, extreme timidity, drug addiction, poor interpersonal skills, stubbornness, necrophilia or whatever) that hindered his relations with teammates and/or coaching staff. Maybe he was marginalized and not part of what we call a good team chemistry. Maybe. McGuire just announced that Hossa is indeed a necrophiliac, and was therefor happy to be traded to New York which he sees as a dead end job. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Oct 1, 2005 12:25:12 GMT -5
One more (far fetched) hypothesis: Hossa, despite showing the stuff we could expect from a good third liner (and I agree with Insomnius as I really wished they had tested more that Hossa-Bonk-Lats line), might have other kind of problems less visible to us outsiders : - maybe he had attitude or behavioural problems (e.g., inflated ego, extreme timidity, drug addiction, poor interpersonal skills, stubbornness, necrophilia or whatever) that hindered his relations with teammates and/or coaching staff. Maybe he was marginalized and not part of what we call a good team chemistry. Maybe. McGuire just announced that Hossa is indeed a necrophiliac, and was therefor happy to be traded to New York which he sees as a dead end job.  good one. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 1, 2005 12:31:03 GMT -5
But if the roster is to be set on merit and not contract and waiver status, why trade Hossa now, when even Gainey admitted just days ago that the market is very poor? Hossa was having one of the best camps of any of the young players. At least as good as Higgins or Perezhoghin, and probably better. But because of his contract and waiver status, and the fact that they didn't want to keep him around despte his good camp, meant he had to be dealt now, when his value was low. How is that a meritocracy? And speaking of, I have heard that Streit has a clause that says he is guaranteed 30 NHL games this year. How is that a meritocracy? How are Vandemeer's or Hainsey's one-way deals meritocracies? The truth is, no team can operate purely on a meritocracy, never could, and most certainly can't now in a cap world. Which is why this trade puzzles me. Why trade Hossa now? Why not use the waiver status of Higgins and Perezhoghin to your advantage? Keep Hossa around, and if he has a good start to the season, trade them, when the hot-shot rookies from other teams fade, and they look for help. If he has a bad start, he'll clear waivers and help Hamilton more than Murray will. Or at the very least, he can be traded for a Murray type player then. On the Team 990 yesterday, they were talking to pro scout Pete Mahovolich, and Hartford Wolfpack broadcaster something-brother-of-Marc-Crawford. Both said Murray was a below average skater with slow feet. Both expressed some surprise that he was traded for a guy like Hossa. I wasn't a huge Hossa fan, but unless they saw something in Murray that nobody else saw, it seems like poor asset management to me... Has anyone ever accused Bob of being a great trader? We all agree that he brings a mature a steady hand to the table but no one ever accused him of trying to outdo Sammy...not yet. Managing your young assets is more important then ever. Trading them away because you are out of options is what makes one an AVERAGE gm. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ The "offensive" potential of this player, frankly, sucks. In 206 AHL/NHL games, he has a TOTAL of 26 goals and 56 points. On the other hand he has 486 penalty minutes and he is not even consider any kind of "fighter". A Jason Ward WITHOUT the so called scoring "talent"? www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=31004This must be one of those "better then nothing" trades because frankly, we got nothing. Great trade...... Not every trade is made for offensive capability. Wait a while before you pass judgement and say the Habs got nothing. If the market value for Jeff Friesen is a middling pick, why do you feel we should get more for Hossa. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 1, 2005 12:32:06 GMT -5
Like everyone, I understand the reason behind the trade (we needed to clear space) but I'm not sure I agree with Hossa being the odd man out and certainly not for the return we got. Let's not kid ourselves, Murray is the kind of player you can get for free anytime you want. In the end, the only thing we recuperate in this trade is 50% of Hossa's salary which we would have had to pay if we had lost him on waivers.
I don't think Hossa was worth a whole lot more than what he fetched but I would keep a guy like Hossa over a guy like Sundstrom anyday. But Julien seems to like Sunny and something tells me that he was not Hossa biggest fan....
Oh well !
On the positive side, it does clear space for Lats who, with the great quality of his play has earned his spot plenty.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 1, 2005 12:33:47 GMT -5
A lot of the reaction here reminds me of the Balej trade.... people hated that one too, but it's worked out very well for us. Murray is a guy who in 2002 was a part of Canada's WJC team; a guy who played in the Prospects Game, a guy who played great defense and was Captain of his junior team, Regina. Hossa was a guy who looked flashy and talented for five games and then disappeared for twenty - the ultimate frustrating player. He had 80% of the talent of his brother and 10% of the heart. I won't miss him one bit. An hfboards.com user's scouting report (he watched Murray play in Regina often): The comments in the quote about Murray's speed are interesting. BC posted comments he heard from Rangers personnel on the Team 990 in which they stated the Murray was a slow skater. Either they are lousy scouts or they are trying to talk up the Ranger side of this deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 1, 2005 12:34:05 GMT -5
One more (far fetched) hypothesis: Hossa, despite showing the stuff we could expect from a good third liner (and I agree with Insomnius as I really wished they had tested more that Hossa-Bonk-Lats line), might have other kind of problems less visible to us outsiders : - maybe he had attitude or behavioural problems (e.g., inflated ego, extreme timidity, drug addiction, poor interpersonal skills, stubbornness, necrophilia or whatever) that hindered his relations with teammates and/or coaching staff. Maybe he was marginalized and not part of what we call a good team chemistry. Maybe. McGuire just announced that Hossa is indeed a necrophiliac, and was therefor happy to be traded to New York which he sees as a dead end job. Hossa was neither a cancer, nor an overachiever. He has size and talent, good genes and potential. He had a very good camp and played well in europe last year. We'd like to keep him just incase, but there is a limit to the number of players we can keep and he had a chance and didn't make it. Obviously Gainey doesn't want to wait for this 24 year old (not over the hill) to display the drive and maturity he sees in an 18 year old (Latendresse). It's a lot like marriage. You date lots of girls, a few survive to be late cuts and finally you settle on the best candidate with prospects to continue to improve and develop. Some guys keep a couple of girlfriends in the minors on the side just in case she doesn't develop as planned. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 1, 2005 12:34:27 GMT -5
I have visions of him shining on a line with Jagr. Gainey was the guy who traded away Iginla remember .... I just hope that this doesn't screw up Bonk. Hossa and Bonk were shining, now Bonk has to get used to someone else and probably someone with less offensive talent as Hossa. What has Jagr been able to do for anyone else on the Rangers? |
|
good one.
