|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jan 10, 2006 19:27:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jan 10, 2006 20:17:57 GMT -5
Would have been better than the latest rumour of Zednik for Gonchar plus a fourth.Although Gonchar would help on the pp he is way to expensiveIMO and this team I think really needs some D that can play D first.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Jan 10, 2006 22:05:59 GMT -5
I'd stay away from Gonchar. He's WAY too overpaid. We wouldn't want to be saddled with another Brisebois type contract would we?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jan 11, 2006 6:28:13 GMT -5
I don't understand the logic behind this deal. I'm not saying that the Stars won't be a better team after this trade, but I don't think it solves, IMHO, their only weakness and that's toughness on D. I've seen more than a few Stars' games this season and with Zubov, Daley, Skoula, even Boucher and Robidas, they have a very mobile D and a great transitional game. they also get a nice offensive contribution from the D. but what they lacked in certain situations was physical toughness and, aside from Klemm and sometimes Boucher, I didn't think the rest of the D is capable of providing it consistently. Erskine was also the one playing tough although he cannot be considered more than a 6-7 dman. I'm not saying that the Stars will miss Erskine, but I see the acquisition of Niinimaa as if the Habs acquired someone like Marc Savard for Begin, improving the team a bit, but not really solving the biggest problem. and when you look at it, the price is not that small, considering they gave up their 2nd round pick for a 4th rounder and siginificantly reduced their manouvering space under the cap ($2M) that may come in handy later. I don't know, it just seems like a deal you make at the trade deadline...  R. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jan 11, 2006 8:12:37 GMT -5
I'd stay away from Gonchar. He's WAY too overpaid. We wouldn't want to be saddled with another Brisebois type contract would we? Trading Zednik for Gonchar would make us a better team. A player like Gonchar is EXACTLY what this team his missing - I think his style of play and offensive skills would have a ripple effect through the entire team. So it comes down to a money issue. Personally, having $5MM tied up in an elite level dman is not a bad thing. We have a lot of young, cheap forwards to give us some bang for the puck, although we would still need to upgrade the 2nd line. I would trade for Gonchar and then see if we can find a way to unload Theodore for a cheaper, more cost-effective goalie. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 11, 2006 10:44:16 GMT -5
Paying Gonchar $5 million THIS year might not be such a bad thing, were it possible under the cap, and it might not even be a bad thing next year... But Gonchar is signed for 5 years. Paying a 37 year old who relies on speed $5 million would almost certainly be a bad thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 13, 2006 20:37:17 GMT -5
Paying Gonchar $5 million THIS year might not be such a bad thing, were it possible under the cap, and it might not even be a bad thing next year... But Gonchar is signed for 5 years. Paying a 37 year old who relies on speed $5 million would almost certainly be a bad thing... Gotta agree there. A 5-year contract is a huge constraint. If it were the same salary for 3 years I might think it's worth the risk, but not for 5 years. That being said, adding a Gonchar-caliber player is exactly what we need. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jan 13, 2006 21:49:37 GMT -5
I'd do Gonchar and Pittsburgh's 1st this year for Zednik but other than getting a 1st from the Pens I wouldn't touch his contract with a 39 1/2 foot pole
|
|
