|
|
Post by Marvin on May 22, 2006 12:34:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2006 13:32:12 GMT -5
I still think we traded Theo too quickly. I dont see the difference in playing Huet with Aebischer complaining on the bench, or playing Huet with Theo complaining on the bench. I still think we could have gotten more this off season for Theo than we will now for Abby |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on May 22, 2006 13:59:51 GMT -5
Fear not Skilly, my good friend. While I understand your POV, I trust those with initmate knowledge of the entire situation involving Theo to make the proper critical decisions with regards to his management. I know many here believe we need an already established star forward to save the franchise from further mediocrity. I'm not one of those. I still think we can draft or trade for an undeveloped player(s) from within the league to fill those shoes. We do possess the league's best talent evaluation team IMO. With that, I think we can expect to see a steady upswing in the team's success rate over the years until the grail is attained and beyond. We need a lineup with four strong lines, not a one line wonder. The defense is a different animal altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habit on May 22, 2006 15:30:23 GMT -5
With $34M tied up in 13 players, they have to move somebody. Look for St Louis or Vinney to be on the block.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 22, 2006 16:16:56 GMT -5
With $34M tied up in 13 players, they have to move somebody. Look for St Louis or Vinney to be on the block. I'm wondering what, if anyone, the Habs have that the Bolts would want. I actually didn't mind seeing Theodore move to tell you the truth. But, Skilly's question of maybe moving him too soon certainly kicks in now. I remember a few posters believing the same thing. Still, there's the possibility of Arnott (more logical given the Dallas connection) and, cough, cough .... Bertuzzi. Have to wait and see I guess. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on May 22, 2006 17:17:02 GMT -5
I still think we traded Theo too quickly. I dont see the difference in playing Huet with Aebischer complaining on the bench, or playing Huet with Theo complaining on the bench. I still think we could have gotten more this off season for Theo than we will now for Abby Well, the difference is $3.5 M. Do you really believe that Tampa can afford $5 M for an average goaltender? Can anyone? I suspect that it is too much to pay for the possibility that he might return to the form of 3 years ago. Incidentally, that possibility is even less now after his average performance in Colorado. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 22, 2006 17:18:52 GMT -5
I still think we traded Theo too quickly. I dont see the difference in playing Huet with Aebischer complaining on the bench, or playing Huet with Theo complaining on the bench. I still think we could have gotten more this off season for Theo than we will now for Abby Can't see why Theo's value would have gone up sitting on the bench. I suspect a big reason the Avs made the deal was for these playoffs - because of his injury, they had to pay him essentially nothing this year. I wonder if they would have been willing to make the same deal now after watching Theo sit during the playoffs, what with the FA's they have to sign. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on May 22, 2006 17:19:08 GMT -5
With $34M tied up in 13 players, they have to move somebody. Look for St Louis or Vinney to be on the block. I'm wondering what, if anyone, the Habs have that the Bolts would want. I actually didn't mind seeing Theodore move to tell you the truth. But, Skilly's question of maybe moving him too soon certainly kicks in now. I remember a few posters believing the same thing. Still, there's the possibility of Arnott (more logical given the Dallas connection) and, cough, cough .... Bertuzzi. Have to wait and see I guess. Cheers. Actually, given their financial constraints wouldn't a ribeiro be attractive? and Aebischer is an inexpensive upgrade over their present goaltending. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2006 17:36:30 GMT -5
I still think we traded Theo too quickly. I dont see the difference in playing Huet with Aebischer complaining on the bench, or playing Huet with Theo complaining on the bench. I still think we could have gotten more this off season for Theo than we will now for Abby Can't see why Theo's value would have gone up sitting on the bench. I suspect a big reason the Avs made the deal was for these playoffs - because of his injury, they had to pay him essentially nothing this year. I wonder if they would have been willing to make the same deal now after watching Theo sit during the playoffs, what with the FA's they have to sign. His value would have went up because Montreal could have blamed his inconsistencies on the supposedly injury he was nursing at the beginning of the year and then his heel injury at the end of the year would have given them the excuse to bench him. And for anyone who says Theo's playoff performance was this year was average ...did you even watch the Colorado games? He played extremely well in round 2, in round one he was average and nothing special , but in round 2 he kept the Ducks from blowing out the Avs. Hard for a goalie to win if his team gets shut out. The difference is 3.5 million? That doesn't cut it. That 3.5 million was not spent on the team in 2005-06. It was pocketed by George Gillette. (The actual number by the way is much lower ... since Montreal traded him in mid season) But the 3.5 million excuse only holds water if the team gets somethign in return using that money ... what did we get last year out of that money? Nothing. Alot of posters were hoping that 3.5 million was going to be put towards a Brad Richards. Well there goes that idea .... that 3.5 million might never be spent and until it does then I would rather have a commodity like Theo to trade for the assest we need than the 3.5 million and the hopes/dreams of some FA wanting to play here. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjazz on May 22, 2006 18:03:46 GMT -5
With $34M tied up in 13 players, they have to move somebody. Look for St Louis or Vinney to be on the block. I'm wondering what, if anyone, the Habs have that the Bolts would want. I actually didn't mind seeing Theodore move to tell you the truth. But, Skilly's question of maybe moving him too soon certainly kicks in now. I remember a few posters believing the same thing. Still, there's the possibility of Arnott (more logical given the Dallas connection) and, cough, cough .... Bertuzzi. Have to wait and see I guess. Cheers. I think Arnott's price just got a lot higher now, and I don't think he would be a good fit. Yes the guy is big, but it seems he has a really bad reputation and just got off his best season just before he becomes a UFA. IMO the only thing that makes him attractive is that he's a free agent... How much do you think he would cost? Some team will probably overpay for him (like Pittsburgh did with gonchar, Chicago with Khabibulin and while we're in the subject, Tampa for Richards), in the ranges of 6 or 6,5 mil. no way he's worth that much IMO. As for Bertuzzi, I really don't want this guy in a Habs uniform, it would become a freak show with the media around here, and I think he is really overrated. IMO it would be bringing a name more than a player. I know this is not a really popular view of him, so don't flame me, I just feel relieved now that I've said it loll. But I do think that now Vinny becomes available and that we could make a move for him. It would clearly be a salary dump so he wouldn't cost that much, but again we won't be the only team making a pitch for him, and with the way teams have been handing out big contracts, his might be a little less of a concern for some, seeing the way the market evolves. And I guess that if he gets traded it will be for a team in the west, we're TB's direct rivals after all. But it will be really interesting to see how Tampa handles things and if Gillet is willing to spend a little! |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on May 22, 2006 20:35:02 GMT -5
Can't see why Theo's value would have gone up sitting on the bench. I suspect a big reason the Avs made the deal was for these playoffs - because of his injury, they had to pay him essentially nothing this year. I wonder if they would have been willing to make the same deal now after watching Theo sit during the playoffs, what with the FA's they have to sign. His value would have went up because Montreal could have blamed his inconsistencies on the supposedly injury he was nursing at the beginning of the year and then his heel injury at the end of the year would have given them the excuse to bench him. And for anyone who says Theo's playoff performance was this year was average ...did you even watch the Colorado games? He played extremely well in round 2, in round one he was average and nothing special , but in round 2 he kept the Ducks from blowing out the Avs. Hard for a goalie to win if his team gets shut out. The difference is 3.5 million? That doesn't cut it. That 3.5 million was not spent on the team in 2005-06. It was pocketed by George Gillette. (The actual number by the way is much lower ... since Montreal traded him in mid season) But the 3.5 million excuse only holds water if the team gets somethign in return using that money ... what did we get last year out of that money? Nothing. Alot of posters were hoping that 3.5 million was going to be put towards a Brad Richards. Well there goes that idea .... that 3.5 million might never be spent and until it does then I would rather have a commodity like Theo to trade for the assest we need than the 3.5 million and the hopes/dreams of some FA wanting to play here. Well, I watched about 1.5 games of the colorado/anaheim series and I thought he played about average. looking at his stats he is also about average. On none of the games was he selected as one of the three stars, even though a number of avalanche players were selected. so, i see no reason to think he was anything other than average. of course, this level of play is better than his performance in montreal this year. Also, what makes you think anybody would want theodore at $5 M? have you considered the situation that his salary vis-a-vis performance would render him untradeable? perhaps we would have had to give him away a la fedorov? as for the money, only a fool would rush out spend it immediately on the first thing he saw. let's give gainey some time to see how he can make use of his resources. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 22, 2006 20:46:53 GMT -5
I'm wondering what, if anyone, the Habs have that the Bolts would want. I actually didn't mind seeing Theodore move to tell you the truth. But, Skilly's question of maybe moving him too soon certainly kicks in now. I remember a few posters believing the same thing. Still, there's the possibility of Arnott (more logical given the Dallas connection) and, cough, cough .... Bertuzzi. Have to wait and see I guess. Cheers. I think Arnott's price just got a lot higher now, and I don't think he would be a good fit. Yes the guy is big, but it seems he has a really bad reputation and just got off his best season just before he becomes a UFA. IMO the only thing that makes him attractive is that he's a free agent... How much do you think he would cost? Some team will probably overpay for him (like Pittsburgh did with gonchar, Chicago with Khabibulin and while we're in the subject, Tampa for Richards), in the ranges of 6 or 6,5 mil. no way he's worth that much IMO. As for Bertuzzi, I really don't want this guy in a Habs uniform, it would become a freak show with the media around here, and I think he is really overrated. IMO it would be bringing a name more than a player. I know this is not a really popular view of him, so don't flame me, I just feel relieved now that I've said it loll. But I do think that now Vinny becomes available and that we could make a move for him. It would clearly be a salary dump so he wouldn't cost that much, but again we won't be the only team making a pitch for him, and with the way teams have been handing out big contracts, his might be a little less of a concern for some, seeing the way the market evolves. And I guess that if he gets traded it will be for a team in the west, we're TB's direct rivals after all. But it will be really interesting to see how Tampa handles things and if Gillet is willing to spend a little! Good points, JJ. I know of the reputation Bertuzzi would bring to town. The other question might also be, can he replace the points Ribeiro is capable of? I think CO brought it up a while ago, but any possible number-2 centre Gainey brings in, will have to at the very least match Ribeiro's point output. Not much some will say, but Ribs is capable of much, much more. I also heard on TSN earlier tonight that Martin St. Louis might be the odd man out. And if so, the Bolts will have to move him out before the 1st of July, which is when his no-trade clause kicks in. This is a hard call IMHO. While extremely talented, where would Carbonneau fit a small firefly like St. Louis in the line up? Coming full circle on you, I think the Habs would be a better team with either Arnott or Bertuzzi in the line up. Arnott is a hardnosed veteran. But, in Bertuzzi's case would "baggage-for-points" be a good tradeoff? Should be an interesting draft day. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Marvin on May 22, 2006 20:51:04 GMT -5
I don't think either Arnott or Bertuzzi could work out in Mtl. Bertuzzi for the obvious reasons, Arnott because he's been an enigma his entire career - a upremely talented player that has never been as good as he should be. The merciless media in Mtl would be relentless.
Marvin
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 22, 2006 23:21:04 GMT -5
See, now I look at that from an entirely different POV. Firstly any trade with Tampa for Richards would require Brad to agree to a long term contract. No sense trading for him for just one year. So Feaster has just solved the Hab's major problem. Now we can look at it as a straight swap. I'm not going to suggest what we'd have to give up, but I'm pretty sure Feaster has to do something, or he's just screwed himself. The Bolts went nowhere with this year's lineup despite having extremely few injuries again. They need a goalie in the worst way and they may have given up on Kubina with that big Richards contract, which means they'll need either another #1 d-man, or they're going to incur even bigger cap problems. At this rate, their 7 through 12 forwards and 4 through 6 d-men are all going to be minor leaguers or very inexperienced ex-juniours. Not a good position. Trading Richards for the right players strikes a better balance. They'll still have Lecavalier and St. Louis., and could afford Kubina, a goalie and maybe someone else. Without Theo, we could probably squeeze Richards under our cap. So today's signing actually has me more confident than before. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 23, 2006 0:00:58 GMT -5
Can't see why Theo's value would have gone up sitting on the bench. I suspect a big reason the Avs made the deal was for these playoffs - because of his injury, they had to pay him essentially nothing this year. I wonder if they would have been willing to make the same deal now after watching Theo sit during the playoffs, what with the FA's they have to sign. His value would have went up because Montreal could have blamed his inconsistencies on the supposedly injury he was nursing at the beginning of the year I don't see why they could use that excuse in the summer any more than they could have in march. In any event, it still wouldn't account for his inconsitencies over the last X years. I think that he played well enough in the playoffs to possibly raise his trade value slightly, but not to the point where I can see many (any?) teams willing to take on his salary without sending a comparable one the other way. IMO, if Gainey had passed up the Theo trade, he would have been like those contestants on Deal or No Deal who turn down $70,000 in favour of a small chance at a bigger prize. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 23, 2006 7:27:07 GMT -5
I still think we traded Theo too quickly. I dont see the difference in playing Huet with Aebischer complaining on the bench, or playing Huet with Theo complaining on the bench. Team chemistry, perhaps? From . . . ? With the couple of veteran goalies that are bound to be on the market Theo, unfortunately, would have been bridesmaid at best in the bidding department. Ya gotta take what you can and run, without regrets. [Where's Bozo with his "Trade Theo keep Garon" line?] |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on May 23, 2006 8:16:50 GMT -5
7.8 Millions/year...This is just insane........
This just screwed up this summer free agents market....
I'd bet 29 GM are not too happy with Feaster about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 23, 2006 9:28:11 GMT -5
TB is going to keep Richards. If you read the TB papers recently Feaster said signing Richards was an absolute priority. He was the Stanley Cup MVP and he had a better season than Lecavalier and a better playoff. If it's a choice between the two I say Vinny gets dealt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 23, 2006 9:34:53 GMT -5
7.8 Millions/year...This is just insane........ This just screwed up this summer free agents market.... I'd bet 29 GM are not too happy with Feaster about this. Does anyone know the contract breakdown? While his cap-hit is 7.8 million, maybe his contract is broken down so that itis back loaded? If he is only getting 5.5 million in year one, 6.5 million in year 2, 7.5 million in year 3, 8.5 million in year 4, and 11 million in year 5 (this is just one possibility, than some GM's might not be so upset). Tampa or whoever gets stuck with the big cap hit in early years, and then with the increase in the salary cap through the years his cap hit goes down - I can see alot of GM drooling over an 11 million dollar player and it only costing them 7.8 million on the cap. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 23, 2006 11:05:15 GMT -5
TB is going to keep Richards. If you read the TB papers recently Feaster said signing Richards was an absolute priority. He was the Stanley Cup MVP and he had a better season than Lecavalier and a better playoff. If it's a choice between the two I say Vinny gets dealt. He may not have to deal any of the Big Three, if he’s creative. I guess it depends on who he wants to target for his goalie, but as we have seen this year, having the most expensive guy isn’t always necessary. He could target a guy like Marty Biron, and who knows how that will turn out. Or, as many have pointed out, David Abeisheir. How would an Abeisheir for Modin deal sound? Bolts would get a goalie, AND save about half a million in the process. Sure, Modin is a fine player, but if that’s the price he has to pay to keep Richards, St. Louis, Lecavalier, AND solve his goaltending issues, I’m sure he’ll do it in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Habit on May 23, 2006 12:24:41 GMT -5
Puts the whole Koviu and Kovy salary in perspective doesn't it!!  |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on May 23, 2006 12:53:20 GMT -5
Puts the whole Koviu and Kovy salary in perspective doesn't it!! No Kidding..... I'm not sure it's good for a team to have a player that makes so much money. Sure, it would have been great to have him here, but at $7.8 ? Not so sure. I think TP made a mistake when they signed St-Louis for so long and so much. Now they are spending 20M for 3 guys that were already on the that team this year and they still fell short (way short)... Now they either keep the 3 of them and pay the others some loose change, or trade one of them. Who wants St-Louis's contract ? Vinnie maybe ? This contract to Richards will end up meaning that one team will not be able to afford more than 2 great players. I suppose in the long run, those players will be spread out in the 30 teams instead of all going to detroit, NY, TO, Colorado etc.... It begs the question: what would he have got in the old CBA/NHL? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 23, 2006 19:25:22 GMT -5
It begs the question: what would he have got in the old CBA/NHL? About 10M. For sure. The guy is a franchise player, one of the very best center in the league, a class act and a true leader. He's got a Conn Smyth and a Stanley Cup under his belt... ...and he just turned 26 this month. He's a formidable player just entering his prime. Sure, it's a lot of money, let's say for argument sake that it's probably about a million too much per year. Now if you're Feaster would you invest that extra 1 mil in order to keep your franchise player? The answer is of course you would. As BC hinted, the goalie market is getting saturated with all sorts of good guys probably available: Biron, Nabokov, Giguere, Raycroft, Gerber, Huet/Aebisher, etc... It won't cost Tampa an arm and a leg to get a starter. I'd bet Tampa fans are probably very happy... |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 24, 2006 0:51:46 GMT -5
But can any of those goalies lead you to the promised land?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 24, 2006 7:01:21 GMT -5
But can any of those goalies lead you to the promised land? ...who would have taught that Roloson, Bryzgalov, Ward and Miller could bring you there over Brodeur, Luongo, Esch, Turco, Kiprussof, Cujo, Khabibulin, etc... ? |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on May 24, 2006 7:06:21 GMT -5
Sure, it's a lot of money, let's say for argument sake that it's probably about a million too much per year. Now if you're Feaster would you invest that extra 1 mil in order to keep your franchise player? The answer is of course you would. Yes, you're right. I think the 6 years to St-Louis might have been his questionnable decision. They still need to pay the rest of the team, including a goalie, and do something about their defense or whatever else didn't work this year. I'm sure the fans are happy, they're keeping everyone.....for now ! |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on May 24, 2006 7:21:39 GMT -5
I was reading an article from the Eklund Web Site. v2.hockeybuzz.com/blogworld/blog.aspx?blogger=1&post=2117He talks about the Richards signing right after the Colorado GM paragraph. I have to say his thoughts are exactly what I was trying to say. (....just doesn't have the english vocabulary to do it and the patience to write that much...  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 24, 2006 7:39:05 GMT -5
The NHL wants parity. IMO, this is not about Richards getting franchise player money, it's about teams that won't have 2, 3, 4 of them while others have none.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 24, 2006 8:53:55 GMT -5
The NHL wants parity. IMO, this is not about Richards getting franchise player money, it's about teams that won't have 2, 3, 4 of them while others have none. TB got screwed more than any other team - they had 3 superstar players and the new CBA forced them to deal with each one much sooner than expected. Under the old rules, they could have held on to all three until they were 31 years old but with the prospect of losing them to FA, Tampa had to act to lock them up and it cost them a bundle. I agree 100% with Eklund's column that the new NHL is about speed, depth, and tenacity - that description fits Buffalo and Edmonton to a tee, although I look at Edmonton's roster and I don't know how they are getting it done. Buffalo has the most talent (1 thru 20) left in the playoffs. But it's not so much about making sure one team doesn't have too much talent as much as it is being adept at managing the talent you have. What we will see in the coming years is what we saw in baseball where cash-poor teams would lock up their best players long before they hit arbitration in order to get as much time as possible. The Expos signed Vladi Guerrero to a 5-year, $25MM contract well before he was eligible for arbitration because they knew it would cost them a bundle if they waited. They traded short-term cost for long-term gain. The trick is to know which players to sign. If you think Alek Perezhogin is going to score 40 some day, then you should sign him to a cheap 5-year deal sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on May 24, 2006 8:56:05 GMT -5
I think that Jay Feaster has shot himself in the foot with the signings of Richards, Lecavalier and St. Louis.
He is going to be very hard pressed to ice a playoff calibre team with his available cap space. Not to mention the fact that they desperately need a goalie.
So last summer we were dreaming about Lecavalier coming to Montreal... this summer it was Richards. In both cases it didn't happen. Some are saying that Feaster will trade someone from the "Tampa trio" in order to free up cap room. I'm not so sure that that's going to happen because Richards specifically said that one of the reasons that he re-signed was because he knew that Lecavalier and St. Louis were going to be with the team. If Feaster turns around and trades one of them it would be a disrespect to Richards.
|
|
