|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 13:27:02 GMT -5
I think Garrioch is trying to connect the dots based on the fact that the Pens don't want to pay Fleury 3 millions in bonuses (which he will receive if he plays 25 NHL games this season). So I guess he's suggesting that Fleury would end up in Mtl. Hmmm. Am trying to see how all this could work out. Theo to Avs. Aebischer to PIT M-A Fleury to MTL. I'd think that any "added value" (ie, a 1st rounder) would be going from the Avs to PIT - getting Fleury straight up for Theo is a good deal for us, in terms of asset value. Perhaps with Komi, Ribs or other players added in we get another warm body, perhaps a forward with some grit or a D who can move the puck. Maybe we throw in Carey Price? If we've got M-A Fleury, we have little need for a high-level prospect, and it might mean that we can get something serious in return in addition to a goalie. In terms of being a serious contender in the short-term, moving Theo for a youngish goalie I'm not so sure though. Still, if the goal is to make us a contender each and every year, this could work. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 15, 2006 16:49:45 GMT -5
Maybe we throw in Carey Price? If we've got M-A Fleury, we have little need for a high-level prospect, and it might mean that we can get something serious in return in addition to a goalie. If you throw in Carey Price in side trade, I'm going to....  Wait until he playes for the Juniors next year and everybody will start yapping about Dryden 2. Drafted assets should NEVER be traded until some PROBALE value has been established for them. If a prospect is progressing then why would you trade them if you havn't explord their potential? Markov was a sixth round draft choice so should we have traded him for a third rounder without keeping him in the system and finding out what their potential was? What is he worth today? If prospects havn't developed by 23, then they should be jettisoned for the best return. After all, at best you have only 4 years left to exploit their potential and if they havn't shown second tier abilities by 23, they probably never will. Nothing less then second tier prospect should be kept in the system unless there are secondary reason. Huge size with slow but inproving skating. Increadable ice vision with small but feisty size. Dirty pictures of the coach. From a strategic point, we can not get rid of Carey. Theo has shown flashes of brilliance with stretches of mediocrity. By the time Theo is due for anther exploitation of GG bank vault, Price should have established himself as "probably" shown serious potential or midiocrity. Our system does not have any Roy or Dryden's. Unless of course anyone believes that Denis is the second comming. The only exception for trading Carey would be a serious payment by someone else who thinks that Price will be great and willing to take the chance now. High probability increadable high future worth for very high present value. And to think that GG wont hire me!  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 17:25:31 GMT -5
Maybe we throw in Carey Price? If we've got M-A Fleury, we have little need for a high-level prospect, and it might mean that we can get something serious in return in addition to a goalie. If you throw in Carey Price in side trade, I'm going to.... Wait until he playes for the Juniors next year and everybody will start yapping about Dryden 2. Drafted assets should NEVER be traded until some PROBALE value has been established for them. .... The only exception for trading Carey would be a serious payment by someone else who thinks that Price will be great and willing to take the chance now. Increadable high future worth for very high present value. And to think that GG wont hire me! Hey, we're in total agreement. I was just saying that if we're getting M-A Fleury back in a trade, Carey Price becomes expendable - but of course, I'd expect full value for a #5 overall pick who's working out pretty well. But if we're trading Theo for a younger goalie, we haven't solved our other problems, so we have to be able to throw something else into the ring if we want to improve our skaters. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 17:30:12 GMT -5
For example, a fair deal might be:
Theo to Avs
Aebischer + Avs 1st rounder to PIT
Carey Price to PIT
M-A Fleury and Ryan Whitney to MTL
So we'd do the deal (Theo for Aeb. + 1st) with the Avs and then deal Aebischer, Avs 1st and Carey Price for M-A Fleury and Ryan Whitney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 15, 2006 17:58:04 GMT -5
For example, a fair deal might be: Theo to Avs Aebischer + Avs 1st rounder to PIT Carey Price to PIT M-A Fleury and Ryan Whitney to MTL So we'd do the deal (Theo for Aeb. + 1st) with the Avs and then deal Aebischer, Avs 1st and Carey Price for M-A Fleury and Ryan Whitney. Done. But.... Why would Pittsburg trade Fleury for Price? What's their incentive? They are giving up a top defensive prospect with a huge upside and a very good tender who has yet to peak. Just for a few million? Then the Pitsburg organization deserves to fold. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2006 20:00:33 GMT -5
Nope ... dont like it ....
If we get Fluery in any three way trade than I want the first rounder or a player of Colorado's roster in return.
Your trade proposal does not make financial sense for Colorado. Let's estimate that they have about 1.5 million in cap space available (which I highly doubt, does anybody know how much they have?).
They are only shedding Aebischer (1.9 Million) and they are gaining Theo (5.333 Million) .... They'd need 1.7 Million room this year and 3.4 Million space next year. They can only take on Theo by shedding 2 players ..... as I proposed before Montreal should deal with them one on one and get Hejduk and Lappy .... then they can deal with Florida or Pittsburgh if they want to replace Theo.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 20:06:40 GMT -5
Why would Pittsburg trade Fleury for Price? What's their incentive? They are giving up a top defensive prospect with a huge upside and a very good tender who has yet to peak. Just for a few million? Then the Pitsburg organization deserves to fold. Hey, I'm just taking freely available pieces of the puzzle and trying to put them together in a way that makes sense for us, not for them ! |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 20:10:19 GMT -5
Nope ... dont like it .... If we get Fluery in any three way trade than I want the first rounder or a player of Colorado's roster in return. While from a cap point of view COL might need to dump salary elsewhere, in terms of trade value if we get Fleury for Theo I think we have to be happy at that point. If the Avs need to throw in an overpaid player to make it work, so be it, but I wouldn't expect that player to be worth much of anything. Remember that as the season unfolds cap room can expand - if they've had 1.5 million available all season long, they can now afford to add 3 million in "annual" salaries, which is close to the difference between Theo and Aebischer. For next season, well, that's COL's problem to make it work then. I wouldn't make the moves in sequence - I think the price to bring a goalie to MTL will climb ridiculously if we trade Theo and are in need in net. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 20:44:03 GMT -5
For example, a fair deal might be: Theo to Avs Aebischer + Avs 1st rounder to PIT Carey Price to PIT M-A Fleury and Ryan Whitney to MTL So we'd do the deal (Theo for Aeb. + 1st) with the Avs and then deal Aebischer, Avs 1st and Carey Price for M-A Fleury and Ryan Whitney. Done. But.... Why would Pittsburg trade Fleury for Price? What's their incentive? They are giving up a top defensive prospect with a huge upside and a very good tender who has yet to peak. Just for a few million? Then the Pitsburg organization deserves to fold. Logically though, PIT would probably not deal Fleury to get Aebischer - I think they'd try to deal Caron and get Aebischer to take more of the load, so Fleury doesn't get his 3 million bonus. Aebischer would be available if the Avs got Theo and didn't give a goalie back - the question then is, who do we get in net if Theo is gone? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2006 21:10:47 GMT -5
Nope ... dont like it .... If we get Fluery in any three way trade than I want the first rounder or a player of Colorado's roster in return. While from a cap point of view COL might need to dump salary elsewhere, in terms of trade value if we get Fleury for Theo I think we have to be happy at that point. If the Avs need to throw in an overpaid player to make it work, so be it, but I wouldn't expect that player to be worth much of anything. Remember that as the season unfolds cap room can expand - if they've had 1.5 million available all season long, they can now afford to add 3 million in "annual" salaries, which is close to the difference between Theo and Aebischer. For next season, well, that's COL's problem to make it work then. Error ... error ... can not compute. Yes they can take on 3 million in annual salaries now if they have 1.5 million space available. Theo is 5.333 Million in annual cap room salary. Not 3 million. The difference between Aebischer's salary and Theo's is 3.4 million annually. Which means at the half way point in the season they'd need about 1.7 million cap space. Trying to find team payroll's on the net is a battle. Each site has a somewhat different number. I found one site that lists Colorado's team salary at $37,781,628. Assuming this to be correct than the Avs only have $1.218 Million in cap space available. So a Theo trade to Colorado with only Aebisher involved could not be made until $500,000 is shaved off the available cap space (which incidentally is about 20 more games for Aebischer). EDIT: Colorado currently only has enough cap room for 18 games of Theo's services. $5,333,333 / 82 = $65,000/game approximately. $1,218,000 / $65,000 = 18 games This is without removing anyone off the roster. Removing Aebisher rightnow frees up another $834,000 dollars. So they'd have $2,050,000 / $65,000 = 31 games of Theo's services ..... they have 36 games remaining so this trade could not be made until the Avs have played at least 5 more games. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 21:21:35 GMT -5
Error ... error ... can not compute. Yes they can take on 3 million in annual salaries now if they have 1.5 million space available. Theo is 5.333 Million in annual cap room salary. Not 3 million. The difference between Aebischer's salary and Theo's is 3.4 million annually. Which means at the half way point in the season they'd need about 1.7 million cap space. Trying to find team payroll's on the net is a battle. Each site has a somewhat different number. I found one site that lists Colorado's team salary at $37,781,628. Assuming this to be correct than the Avs only have $1.218 Million in cap space available. So a Theo trade to Colorado with only Aebisher involved could not be made until $500,000 is shaved off the available cap space (which incidentally is about 20 more games for Aebischer). EDIT: Colorado currently only has enough cap room for 18 games of Theo's services. $5,333,333 / 82 = $65,000/game approximately. $1,218,000 / $65,000 = 18 games This is without removing anyone off the roster. Removing Aebisher rightnow frees up another $834,000 dollars. So they'd have $2,050,000 / $65,000 = 31 games of Theo's services ..... they have 36 games remaining so this trade could not be made until the Avs have played at least 5 more games. And now we know why teams need "capologists" and bring them along with them when talking about potential trades. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 15, 2006 21:30:50 GMT -5
Error ... error ... can not compute. Yes they can take on 3 million in annual salaries now if they have 1.5 million space available. Theo is 5.333 Million in annual cap room salary. Not 3 million. The difference between Aebischer's salary and Theo's is 3.4 million annually. Which means at the half way point in the season they'd need about 1.7 million cap space. Trying to find team payroll's on the net is a battle. Each site has a somewhat different number. I found one site that lists Colorado's team salary at $37,781,628. Assuming this to be correct than the Avs only have $1.218 Million in cap space available. So a Theo trade to Colorado with only Aebisher involved could not be made until $500,000 is shaved off the available cap space (which incidentally is about 20 more games for Aebischer). EDIT: Colorado currently only has enough cap room for 18 games of Theo's services. $5,333,333 / 82 = $65,000/game approximately. $1,218,000 / $65,000 = 18 games This is without removing anyone off the roster. Removing Aebisher rightnow frees up another $834,000 dollars. So they'd have $2,050,000 / $65,000 = 31 games of Theo's services ..... they have 36 games remaining so this trade could not be made until the Avs have played at least 5 more games. And now we know why teams need "capologists" and bring them along with them when talking about potential trades. ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 16, 2006 0:26:46 GMT -5
Logically though, PIT would probably not deal Fleury to get Aebischer - I think they'd try to deal Caron and get Aebischer to take more of the load, so Fleury doesn't get his 3 million bonus. Aebischer would be available if the Avs got Theo and didn't give a goalie back - the question then is, who do we get in net if Theo is gone? Hmm, 2 scenarios come to mind: 1) a 3-way deal where what we get for Theo goes, in whole or in part, into getting a new goalie: Theo (to Avs) for Tanguay(to FLO) for Luongo (to MTL). 2) a totally separate deal for, I'd guess, a lesser goalie - a Biron or someone of that ilk. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 16, 2006 22:03:19 GMT -5
Logically though, PIT would probably not deal Fleury to get Aebischer - I think they'd try to deal Caron and get Aebischer to take more of the load, so Fleury doesn't get his 3 million bonus. Aebischer would be available if the Avs got Theo and didn't give a goalie back - the question then is, who do we get in net if Theo is gone? Hmm, 2 scenarios come to mind: 1) a 3-way deal where what we get for Theo goes, in whole or in part, into getting a new goalie: Theo (to Avs) for Tanguay(to FLO) for Luongo (to MTL). 2) a totally separate deal for, I'd guess, a lesser goalie - a Biron or someone of that ilk. Good idea ... but if we are trading Theo I don't think I'd want a goalie in return. In my mind we are not going to get as good a goalie back .... but if we can use Theo to get that sniper we need and a defenseman well we fill two holes with one trade. Trading Theo means we commit ourselves to develoing Danis now and our goalie of the future is Price or someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Yeti on Jan 17, 2006 8:59:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 17, 2006 12:20:51 GMT -5
Nobody is untouchable but given the endorsement that both Gillett and Gainey gave to Theodore, it would greatly surprise me if any of those rumors had much substance to them.
To comment on the rumor, Laraque, Dvorack and Conklin are barely hanging to the NHL and I sure don't think you'd build a winner on such players. Schremp and Pouliot are interesting but they remain prospects and I seriously doubt that Gainey would trade what Gillett referred to as the franchise for a prospect and a few spare parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jan 17, 2006 12:26:21 GMT -5
Nobody is untouchable but given the endorsement that both Gillett and Gainey gave to Theodore, it would greatly surprise me if any of those rumors had much substance to them. To comment on the rumor, Laraque, Dvorack and Conklin are barely hanging to the NHL and I sure don't think you'd build a winner on such players. Schremp and Pouliot are interesting but they remain prospects and I seriously doubt that Gainey would trade what Gillett referred to as the franchise for a prospect and a few spare parts. Agreed. Of note; Laraque has publicly expressed his great disdain of ever playing for the Montreal Canadiens countless times. CO p.s. Yo Georgie...kiss our collectives asses! |
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Jan 17, 2006 12:53:44 GMT -5
Nobody is untouchable but given the endorsement that both Gillett and Gainey gave to Theodore, it would greatly surprise me if any of those rumors had much substance to them. To comment on the rumor, Laraque, Dvorack and Conklin are barely hanging to the NHL and I sure don't think you'd build a winner on such players. Schremp and Pouliot are interesting but they remain prospects and I seriously doubt that Gainey would trade what Gillett referred to as the franchise for a prospect and a few spare parts. Agreed. Of note; Laraque has publicly expressed his great disdain of ever playing for the Montreal Canadiens countless times. CO p.s. Yo Georgie...kiss our collectives asses! For what it's worth, Georgy made an about-face on that particular question earlier this season, saying that he was allowed to change his mind! That being said, I don't believe for a minute that these are the players involved if the rumour is actually legit. I believe that there may be discussions between the teams, but to have our franchise player leave without a franchise player (or difference maker) coming back, is a pointless move. Agree with Doc! Other than the Ribeiro thing, we seem to be on the same page on alot of things....scary! THF |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 17, 2006 15:23:42 GMT -5
Why does Laraque continue to be included and mentioned? 1. He doesn't want to come here. 2. WE DON'T WANT HIM! 3. [forgot] We are still left without someone to tend net. Now if Garon were still here . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jan 17, 2006 18:28:49 GMT -5
What Pouliot were they talking about? If it's Benoit Pouliot, he was drafted by Minnesota. Anyways, would would want any of the Oiler's goalies? They don't want them either. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on Jan 17, 2006 19:09:28 GMT -5
Nobody is untouchable but given the endorsement that both Gillett and Gainey gave to Theodore, it would greatly surprise me if any of those rumors had much substance to them. To comment on the rumor, Laraque, Dvorack and Conklin are barely hanging to the NHL and I sure don't think you'd build a winner on such players. Schremp and Pouliot are interesting but they remain prospects and I seriously doubt that Gainey would trade what Gillett referred to as the franchise for a prospect and a few spare parts. Agreed. Of note; Laraque has publicly expressed his great disdain of ever playing for the Montreal Canadiens countless times. CO p.s. Yo Georgie...kiss our collectives asses! And collectivly we have one HUGE ASS so pucker up buttercup. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 17, 2006 19:36:03 GMT -5
What Pouliot were they talking about? If it's Benoit Pouliot, he was drafted by Minnesota. Anyways, would would want any of the Oiler's goalies? They don't want them either. Marc Antoine Pouliot of the Bulldogs... their #2 prospect behind Schremp. Goaltenders Drouin-Deslauriers and Dubnyk are also Oiler property and are ranked as their #3 and #5 prospect |
|
|
|
Post by TheHabsfan on Jan 18, 2006 8:49:00 GMT -5
From Spectors:
THE LATEST ON JOSE THEODORE.
EDMONTON SUN: Robin Brownlee yesterday reported a rumour currently making the rounds has the Montreal Canadiens shipping goalie Jose Theodore to the Oilers in exchange for forward Georges Laraque, prospect forward Robbie Schremp and one of the Oilers netminders.
EDMONTON SUN: In today's column Brownlee reports Oilers assistant GM Scott Howson dismissed the rumour claiming his club has had no talks with the Canadiens.
Spector's Note: My thanks to everyone who sent this in. Sounds like a fantasy trade to me. Laraque is on record as saying he doesn't want to play in Montreal and would likely bolt via unrestricted free agency this summer. None of the Oilers goalies (Ty Conklin was mentioned in subsequent updates to this rumour) are an adequate replacement for Theodore and all would melt under the pressure of playing in Montreal. The only part of this rumour that might make sense is the Habs getting Schremp in the deal, but there are considerable questions about his attitude. Sorry, this trade doesn't benefit the Canadiens and thus I don't see Bob Gainey doing this deal.
SPORTSNET.CA: reported last night Theodore and Habs GM Bob Gainey had a falling out last November in a closed door meeting regarding his goaltending equipment, as Gainey apparently contended Theodore's switch to new equipment may have been leading to his problems in goal. It got to the point where Theodore was prepared to accept a trade rather than go back to his old equipment, but fortunately cooler heads prevailed.
Spector's Note: While this is obviously old news we can expect this story to keep the rumour mill churning in Montreal. Again, while it's always possible Gainey could trade Theodore, I still contend he won't do so unless he can pick up a comparable netminder in return.
THF
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jan 18, 2006 8:49:04 GMT -5
These rumours will hopefully be put to bed after the western swing,its pretty evident Bob has no intentions on giving up on the playoffs and would only trade Theo if he recieved a goalie as capable as the real Theo.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 18, 2006 13:06:10 GMT -5
Huet is not the answer.
Price, someday.
Danis, soon.
Theo, for now. (he's still young for a goaltender)
Garon, too late.
Vokun, whoda thunkit?
Theo was good a couple of years ago. He's not bad now, but there are certainly other options, less expensive and better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 18, 2006 22:11:39 GMT -5
The other Theo to Edmonton thread suggests we acquire
Conklin (1.14 million)
Bergeron (0.608 million)
Dvorak (1.596 Million)
Laraque (1.083 Million)
Schremp (juniors)
Why to I get the feeling someone just threw names to add up to Theo's 4.5 million dollar salary. First of all Theo's salary may be 4.5 million but his cap hit is 5.333 million. So we have to ask ourselves what is Edmonton cap space? With Pronger and Peca and Smyth do they have $500,000 kicking around?
Then we have to ask ourselves what in God's name will Montreal do with 3 more regular players? Who on our current roster gets a comfy spot in the press-box? And then next year we have four high prospects eliminating even more people of the current roster ...... the trade makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 18, 2006 22:23:45 GMT -5
The other Theo to Edmonton thread suggests we acquire Conklin (1.14 million) Bergeron (0.608 million) Dvorak (1.596 Million) Laraque (1.083 Million) Schremp (juniors) Why to I get the feeling someone just threw names to add up to Theo's 4.5 million dollar salary. Then we have to ask ourselves what in God's name will Montreal do with 3 more regular players? Who on our current roster gets a comfy spot in the press-box? And then next year we have four high prospects eliminating even more people of the current roster ...... the trade makes no sense to me. I agree completely. Conklin is an AHL goaltender. Bergeron is an undersized defenseman Dvorak - I dunno what does he bring to the table Laraque - doesn't want to come to Montreal Shremp - has potential but we already have guys with potential (S. Kostistyn, Grabovsky, Latendresse etc.) There isn't a single bonafide NHL top tier player in this group. It's a bunch of garbage, upcoming free agents and disappointing prospects) |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jan 19, 2006 7:18:13 GMT -5
What Pouliot were they talking about? If it's Benoit Pouliot, he was drafted by Minnesota. Anyways, would would want any of the Oiler's goalies? They don't want them either. Marc Antoine Pouliot of the Bulldogs... their #2 prospect behind Schremp. Goaltenders Drouin-Deslauriers and Dubnyk are also Oiler property and are ranked as their #3 and #5 prospect Thanks for the info Bob. Actually, when I referred to the Oiler goalies, I was talking about the guys they have in the NHL now, not their goaltending prospects. In any case, thanks for doing my homework. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jan 19, 2006 19:33:56 GMT -5
I really hope that this Oiler rumour is not true.
I agree with most of you... the deal makes absolutely no sense.
Let's hope that it's just a rumour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 19, 2006 20:24:25 GMT -5
I really hope that this Oiler rumour is not true. I agree with most of you... the deal makes absolutely no sense. Let's hope that it's just a rumour. Indeed. It's a Reggie Houle trade proposal if ever I saw one: wait until in a position of weakness, and trade an asset for multiple assets of lesser value.. and maybe sweeten the deal with a throw in. |
|
