Bold Moves

[Bob]

The team has been improving at a painstakingly slow pace over the past two or three seasons. Changes have been made on the fringes but the core has remained more or less the same.

Can the team move to the next level by continuing this practice or is a shakeup required. The Bruins traded their highest profile player to add depth to the rest of the team and to send a message.

Is that a strategy the Habs should pursue. Keep in mind that our highest profile player is Theodore.

Are players like Ribeiro impossible to trade because the team fears a backlash from the fans.

Do we follow another path to see what it would cost to land guys like Weight and Ozolinsh.

All three of those would be bold moves. I am interested in everyone's thoughts.

Or do we show patience and hope that when everyone returns from injury and suspension, the team will resume its winning ways.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

The Rangers constantly made bold moves and it got them nowhere. Good teams are built painstakingly from within.
I wish there was a quick fix, but there isn't.

[olematelot]

Patience is a virtue

[Bob]

habsfaninla said:

The Rangers constantly made bold moves and it got them nowhere. Good teams are built painstakingly from within.
I wish there was a quick fix, but there isn't.

The Senators traded Berard for Redden and Yashin for Spezza and Chara.

I think good teams are built painstakingly by good organizations using a combination of good drafts and astute trades.

Too many time in the past, the Habs have made trades of desperation rather than trading from strength. When you wait until you desperately need someone, your chances of making a successful trade are diminished. You need to recognize when another team may be desperate and then you have a stronger position at the bargaining table.

[clear observer]

He who hesitates, is lost


CO

[Deleted]

A higher chance of landing a marquee player won't happen until the trading deadline when struggling teams are more willing to give up their star players.

However, I'd like Gainey to make some deals before that time. We still have an issue with defense and goal-scoring. Making two big moves to acquire two of those things will require an awful lot of our assets. If we give up too much, we'll be rebuilding again in a few seasons. If we add a player or two here or there to make us a stronger team for the years to come, the journey will be longer, and hopefully the goals will still be the same.

Acquiring the likes of Doug Weight would mean parting with at least 2 of, but not limited to, these individuals: Markov, Ribeiro, Zednik, Ryder. Or, just one of those players plus some of our prospects and draft picks.

That said, I am interested in Doug Weight. Very interested.

EDIT: In retrospect, Doug Weight is another small-ish center only puts up around 50 points every year. I don't think he'd do well in the Montreal spot-light. I'm actually more interested in Tkachuk, who is a 30-goal scorer.

It's a really big salary, but who would we have to give up that would interest the Blues? Probably some players that I have already listed. I'm sure Zednik and Ribeiro would be part of that deal.

[Doc Holliday]

habsfaninla said:

The Rangers constantly made bold moves and it got them nowhere. Good teams are built painstakingly from within.
I wish there was a quick fix, but there isn't.

That is painfully true.

But it doesn't mean our GM should just sit on his hands and watch the grass grow. Gainey added some good contributors in Kovalev, Dandy and Begin. Bonk, while he is a bit of a let down due to his non-production, he is accomplishing his main task of being a defensive center. As a waiver wire pick up, Dags certainly delivered more than anyone expected. Sure enough we lost Hainsey, who was hated by a vast majority here before this week, and Hossa, who almost everybody here didn't even expect would be resigned in the summer...

Should Gainey swing for the fence ? Maybe. He's got the know how, the good conciliare, some interesting assets and the connection to try a big coup and IMO he WILL try something.

...but on his term and in his time. Unlike Houle and Savard, Gainey won't be pressured into making a knee jerk move. Of course it's tough on the nerves of us fans that want the cup tomorrow.

[Bob]

mattdhf said:

Acquiring the likes of Doug Weight would mean parting with at least 2 of, but not limited to, these individuals: Markov, Ribeiro, Zednik, Ryder. Or, just one of those players plus some of our prospects and draft picks.

That said, I am interested in Doug Weight. Very interested.

The thing that makes Weight less costly in terms of players you might have to give up is the fact that he carries a big contract. Not too many teams would want to pick that up (see Sergei Federov). It's not an impossibility... Gainey just has to convince the Blues that Weight's salary is a burden they should rid themselves of.

At the same time they could throw in Eric Weinrich who would be Montreal's second highest scoring defenseman and would add some experience to the blueline. He has also played in Montreal and might want to come to a team with a chance of winning. He only has 2/3 of a year left on his contract before he is a UFA so he might not cost much

That would allow Montreal the luxury of letting Souray move closer to his daughter.

How's that for bold?

[CentreHice]

mattdhf said:

EDIT: In retrospect, Doug Weight is another small-ish center only puts up around 50 points every year. I don't think he'd do well in the Montreal spot-light. I'm actually more interested in Tkachuk, who is a 30-goal scorer.

But with Tkachuk you get weight.....

[Bob]

mattdhf said:

A In retrospect, Doug Weight is another small-ish center only puts up around 50 points every year. I don't think he'd do well in the Montreal spot-light. I'm actually more interested in Tkachuk, who is a 30-goal scorer.

Weight is 1" shorter and 30 lbs heavier than Ribeiro. He has average 72 points for every 80 games played in his career.

Tkachuk doesn't interest me at all. He has averaged 6 more points per year than Weight but his attitude is bad. The fact that he reported to camp at 240 lbs despite having the largest contract in the NHL tells me something about his commitment.

[Doc Holliday]

mattdhf said:

EDIT: In retrospect, Doug Weight is another small-ish center only puts up around 50 points every year. I don't think he'd do well in the Montreal spot-light. I'm actually more interested in Tkachuk, who is a 30-goal scorer.

It's a really big salary, but who would we have to give up that would interest the Blues? Probably some players that I have already listed. I'm sure Zednik and Ribeiro would be part of that deal.

...there you go.

St-Louis would probably give you Tkachuk if you'd ask (the same way Burke gave Fedorov) but given Keith salary, Gainey would have to trade a high salary to get him. Hence my Theo/Tkachuk proposal.

[cigarviper]

I don't know. The Bertuzzi/Cloutier for Theo/Ribeiro sits well with me. Not sure how the numbers work out though. Bertuzzi would add an interesting dynamic to the team.

[Deleted]

cigarviper said:

I don't know. The Bertuzzi/Cloutier for Theo/Ribeiro sits well with me. Not sure how the numbers work out though. Bertuzzi would add an interesting dynamic to the team.

I like Auld better than Cloutier, and Bertuzzi hasn't been the same.

Not to mention some of us were calling for his head.

[Vinna]

centrehice said:

mattdhf said:

EDIT: In retrospect, Doug Weight is another small-ish center only puts up around 50 points every year. I don't think he'd do well in the Montreal spot-light. I'm actually more interested in Tkachuk, who is a 30-goal scorer.

But with Tkachuk you get weight.....

He wouldn't fit in......to the pants....to the jerseys....the hot dog vendors at Bell Center would love him tho....Is there a White Castle near the Bell Center.....

[jkr]

docholliday said:

habsfaninla said:

The Rangers constantly made bold moves and it got them nowhere. Good teams are built painstakingly from within.
I wish there was a quick fix, but there isn't.

That is painfully true.

But it doesn't mean our GM should just sit on his hands and watch the grass grow. Gainey added some good contributors in Kovalev, Dandy and Begin. Bonk, while he is a bit of a let down due to his non-production, he is accomplishing his main task of being a defensive center. As a waiver wire pick up, Dags certainly delivered more than anyone expected. Sure enough we lost Hainsey, who was hated by a vast majority here before this week, and Hossa, who almost everybody here didn't even expect would be resigned in the summer...

Should Gainey swing for the fence ? Maybe. He's got the know how, the good conciliare, some interesting assets and the connection to try a big coup and IMO he WILL try something.

...but on his term and in his time. Unlike Houle and Savard, Gainey won't be pressured into making a knee jerk move. Of course it's tough on the nerves of us fans that want the cup tomorrow.

Thanks for the proper emphasis on your comments about Hossa & Hainsey.

[blny]

mattdhf said:

cigarviper said:

I don't know. The Bertuzzi/Cloutier for Theo/Ribeiro sits well with me. Not sure how the numbers work out though. Bertuzzi would add an interesting dynamic to the team.

I like Auld better than Cloutier, and Bertuzzi hasn't been the same.

Not to mention some of us were calling for his head.

I think all Bert needs is a change of scenery. Can you imagine he and Kovalev on either side of Koivu? I'm drooling lol.

Do I think it's going to happen? No, but I didn't think Thornton was going anywhere either. Would I trade Theo to get Bert? I would seriously consider it. I no Nonis wouldn't be interested in Ribeiro. They have Morrison and Sedin. I don't seeing him adding a centre at this point, unless it's someone hands down better than Morrison. I am sure Nonis would want a winger back. I'd start with Zednik, but he's likely gonna want Perezhogin.

[BadCompany]

Genius is always misunderstood in its own time.

badcompany said:

I still want Bourret, and would not be adverse to trading down to get him.

How about a blockbuster? (To save everybody the aggravation, I'll put this right here, up front: )

To Vancouver: Theodore, the 5th overall (Brule), a throw-in (Plekanec?)
To Montreal: Bertuzzi, Cloutier, the 10th overall (Bourret or Bourdon).

Make everybody mad. Half the people will be mad we got rid of Theodore, half the people will be mad we picked up the monster psychopath Bertuzzi, and the other half (Yogi?) will be mad we got rid of a top prospect in Plekanec. Whoever’s left will be mad we picked up the choker Cloutier.

Theodore and Bertuzzi are a wash. Bertuzzi is probably a better player, but he’s going to be suspended for the first 20 games of the year, and his name is mud. The Canucks need goaltending, and Theodore has (the illusion of?) playoff credentials.

Cloutier and Plekanec are a wash. Plekanec has no room in Montreal, Cloutier has no friends in Vancouver. He’ll provide decent goaltending until Yann Danis is ready (like next spring, when the playoffs start).

Canucks get to draft Brule at 5th overall (assuming he’s still around), the Habs can take Bourret or Bourdon at 10th overall, and not look like they were stretching to get them.

[Habit]

If patience is the problem, then panic is the cure.

[Skilly]

badcompany said:

Genius is always misunderstood in its own time.

badcompany said:

I still want Bourret, and would not be adverse to trading down to get him.

How about a blockbuster? (To save everybody the aggravation, I'll put this right here, up front: )

To Vancouver: Theodore, the 5th overall (Brule), a throw-in (Plekanec?)
To Montreal: Bertuzzi, Cloutier, the 10th overall (Bourret or Bourdon).

Make everybody mad. Half the people will be mad we got rid of Theodore, half the people will be mad we picked up the monster psychopath Bertuzzi, and the other half (Yogi?) will be mad we got rid of a top prospect in Plekanec. Whoever’s left will be mad we picked up the choker Cloutier.

Theodore and Bertuzzi are a wash. Bertuzzi is probably a better player, but he’s going to be suspended for the first 20 games of the year, and his name is mud. The Canucks need goaltending, and Theodore has (the illusion of?) playoff credentials.

Cloutier and Plekanec are a wash. Plekanec has no room in Montreal, Cloutier has no friends in Vancouver. He’ll provide decent goaltending until Yann Danis is ready (like next spring, when the playoffs start).

Canucks get to draft Brule at 5th overall (assuming he’s still around), the Habs can take Bourret or Bourdon at 10th overall, and not look like they were stretching to get them.

That isn't a bad trade. But do the habs have 1.3+ million cap space available?

Theo = 5.33M cap number
Pleky = 0.45 cap number

Not sure of Cloutier and bertuzzi's cap numbers but this year's salary are

Bertuzzi = 5.26908M
Cloutier = 2.45M

So Theo + PLeky = 5.78 which is less than Bertuzzi+ Cloutier = 7.719

Subtracting ... 7.719 - 5.78 = 1.939M

However there is only 70% remaining on the contracts so 5.4033 - 4.046 = 1.3573 Million that the Habs have to have available to make this trade today.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

bob said:

habsfaninla said:

The Rangers constantly made bold moves and it got them nowhere. Good teams are built painstakingly from within.
I wish there was a quick fix, but there isn't.

The Senators traded Berard for Redden and Yashin for Spezza and Chara.

I think good teams are built painstakingly by good organizations using a combination of good drafts and astute trades.

Too many time in the past, the Habs have made trades of desperation rather than trading from strength. When you wait until you desperately need someone, your chances of making a successful trade are diminished. You need to recognize when another team may be desperate and then you have a stronger position at the bargaining table.

The Senators showed real class the way they handled both those trades.

Yashin was a cancer and they made him sit and wait on the sidelines for a year. They stuck to their principles and were ready to wait another year if necessary. Along comes the Islanders resident genius and offers them, Speeza, one of the most highly touted draft picks since Lindros and Chara, a skilled mountain of a defenseman for an idle asset. How could Ottawa not grab that one.
Berard was a star talent with health problems for Redden. Good move.
All of us 4th rate wannabe GM's would have made those trades, maybe even Gainey? LOL

;D

I really liked the way Ottawa didn't cave into Yashin and his federal government employee mother.

[blny]

centrehice said:

mattdhf said:

EDIT: In retrospect, Doug Weight is another small-ish center only puts up around 50 points every year. I don't think he'd do well in the Montreal spot-light. I'm actually more interested in Tkachuk, who is a 30-goal scorer.

But with Tkachuk you get weight.....

The scoop on Jabba:

thefourthperiod.com/news/stl051205.html

He apparently has a no trade clause - according to the article. If he can be convinced to waive it, whoever lands him would have an option for next year at $3.8 million - half his current salary.

[Doc Holliday]

badcompany said:

Genius is always misunderstood in its own time.

badcompany said:

I still want Bourret, and would not be adverse to trading down to get him.

How about a blockbuster? (To save everybody the aggravation, I'll put this right here, up front: )

To Vancouver: Theodore, the 5th overall (Brule), a throw-in (Plekanec?)
To Montreal: Bertuzzi, Cloutier, the 10th overall (Bourret or Bourdon).

Make everybody mad. Half the people will be mad we got rid of Theodore, half the people will be mad we picked up the monster psychopath Bertuzzi, and the other half (Yogi?) will be mad we got rid of a top prospect in Plekanec. Whoever’s left will be mad we picked up the choker Cloutier.

Theodore and Bertuzzi are a wash. Bertuzzi is probably a better player, but he’s going to be suspended for the first 20 games of the year, and his name is mud. The Canucks need goaltending, and Theodore has (the illusion of?) playoff credentials.

Cloutier and Plekanec are a wash. Plekanec has no room in Montreal, Cloutier has no friends in Vancouver. He’ll provide decent goaltending until Yann Danis is ready (like next spring, when the playoffs start).

Canucks get to draft Brule at 5th overall (assuming he’s still around), the Habs can take Bourret or Bourdon at 10th overall, and not look like they were stretching to get them.

Well, that 5th is no longer available so Mr Genuis you'll have to tweak your trade offer a little.

Zednik/Souray for Bert. Zed is kind of expandable on the first line and Souray is rumored to have asked to be traded to a West Coast team to be closer to his daughter... It would be similar to the Thornton for Sturm/Stuart thingy.

As an aside, the highly reputable Eklund claims the HABS are interested in Bert...

[blny]

docholliday said:

As an aside, the highly reputable Eklund claims the HABS are interested in Bert...

Nice lol.

[Doc Holliday]

blny said:

He apparently has a no trade clause - according to the article. If he can be convinced to waive it, whoever lands him would have an option for next year at $3.8 million - half his current salary.

That's interesting.

If we could manage to fit in Tkachuk this year, we'd have plenty of room next year to keep him and Koivu...

Zednik - Koivu - Kovalev
Tkatchuk - Ribeiro - Ryder

...Would look pretty darn lethal...

[PTH]

docholliday said:

blny said:

He apparently has a no trade clause - according to the article. If he can be convinced to waive it, whoever lands him would have an option for next year at $3.8 million - half his current salary.

That's interesting.

If we could manage to fit in Tkachuk this year, we'd have plenty of room next year to keep him and Koivu...

The cap isn't based on per-year salary, it's based on average salary over a the entire contract. So his cap number is the same next year as this year...

EDIT: However, maybe it works for an options. That would be pretty sweet.

[blny]

If you can get something resembling the Tkachuk of old, the $3.8 million is well spent. It leaves $1.4 million (as it relates to Bertuzzi) to spend elsewhere if possible. With Keith in the lineup we'll need to upgrade our penalty killers.

[BadCompany]

pth said:

docholliday said:

That's interesting.

If we could manage to fit in Tkachuk this year, we'd have plenty of room next year to keep him and Koivu...

The cap isn't based on per-year salary, it's based on average salary over a the entire contract. So his cap number is the same next year as this year...

EDIT: However, maybe it works for an options. That would be pretty sweet.

I wonder how that works for guys who are traded. For example, say you have a guy with a 5 year contract, at 1, 1, 1, 2, and 10. Average is $3 million per year, but if you trade the guy in the fifth year, does the team that acquired him only pay $3 million to the cap, even though they are paying $10 million in salary?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

badcompany said:

pth said:

The cap isn't based on per-year salary, it's based on average salary over a the entire contract. So his cap number is the same next year as this year...

EDIT: However, maybe it works for an options. That would be pretty sweet.

I wonder how that works for guys who are traded. For example, say you have a guy with a 5 year contract, at 1, 1, 1, 2, and 10. Average is $3 million per year, but if you trade the guy in the fifth year, does the team that acquired him only pay $3 million to the cap, even though they are paying $10 million in salary?

The converse should also hold true if the final year's salary falls under the average of the contract, then—bonus.

It seems logical to me that the last club should only be liable for the averaged salary that was determined when the original contract was signed. Though we'll have to see the CBA to be sure how it works.

[Doc Holliday]

pth said:

EDIT: However, maybe it works for an options. That would be pretty sweet.

That was my point. Since it's an option, I would think that Tkatchuk salary this year isn't based on what his salary may be next year. So IMO it would roll as 67% of 7.6MM (5.1M) for the rest of the year and 3.8 for next year.

If Gainey could find a way to offload about 3mil (Bonk) we'd be ok.

[blny]

docholliday said:

pth said:

EDIT: However, maybe it works for an options. That would be pretty sweet.

That was my point. Since it's an option, I would think that Tkatchuk salary this year isn't based on what his salary may be next year. So IMO it would roll as 67% of 7.6MM (5.1M) for the rest of the year and 3.8 for next year.

If Gainey could find a way to offload about 3mil (Bonk) we'd be ok.

He needs to find a team with a combination of being thin at centre and "thin" mentally. At this point Bonk is hardly tradable.