|
|
Post by jerry_dog on Mar 6, 2002 22:12:40 GMT -5
Jeff Hackett was just helped off the ice with a suspected separated shoulder as he made a save with 11:00 left in the third. Theodore is in and no trades again for Hackett. Deja vu all over again! Get well soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 6, 2002 22:16:02 GMT -5
Holy mother of bad luck Batman...
Sweet Mother of Christ in the Garden, just when it looks like we might be getting a break?
I'd swear, but they'd probably bleep it.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 6, 2002 22:52:29 GMT -5
Well that just shows we should never have been considering dealing him.
An injury can just come right out of the blue and bit you in the butt.
I wouldn't be pressing our luck right now with dealing away a great plan B.
Better Hack than Theo I say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Mar 6, 2002 23:23:53 GMT -5
Well that just shows we should never have been considering dealing him. An injury can just come right out of the blue and bit you in the butt. <br> I wouldn't be pressing our luck right now with dealing away a great plan B. <br> Better Hack than Theo I say. Wow, that's tough. I sure hope it isn't a separated shoulder. I hate to see Jeff hurt but better him than Jose. It's really bad when a starting goalie is injured. Speaking of goalies, it looks like Denis is out now with injuries. The Blue Jackets had to start Tugnutt. That means Ron is off the trade market too, at least until the trade deadline. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 6, 2002 23:36:33 GMT -5
The almost official word:(from the Habs dressing room) separated LEFT shoulder(same shoulder as the previous injury).Man,what a terrible break.
The big loser in this is Jeff Hackett.With the way he was playing,there was a chance he would go somewhere and play 15-20 games down the stretch or he would stay here and play 5-6-8 games down the stretch.Resurect is career and prove he still has a few good years left.But now,his value has just gone from what? adequate to nothing.Teams will not be interested in him now.Not after his 3rd serious injury in barely a year.Once you get the reputation of being an 'injury prone' player,it's tough to shake it off.Especially when you are a soon to be 34 year old.
And next year? He will probably not be protected in the waiver draft,if he isn't picked up,he may wind up in Quebec or if he is picked up by another team,we will get nothing in return.
Pam,is the Denis story true? I thought I saw both Denis and Tugnutt in the Columbus-Colorado game.Man,goalies are going down everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Mar 6, 2002 23:58:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 7, 2002 0:00:01 GMT -5
At this point I would let Hackett go for nothing. Or I would simply give him up at the draft for a couple of picks...I am deppressed......Big win, huge loss all in one night  I'd hate to be the fan of the team that would give up 2 picks or more for Hackett when he will be available in the waiver draft at the start of October. What a terrible mistake Reggie made signing him for 4 years at that price. |
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Mar 7, 2002 1:12:28 GMT -5
Looks like a groin injury during the game for Denis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 7, 2002 4:26:36 GMT -5
What a terrible mistake Reggie made signing him for 4 years at that price. Hindsight is 20/20. Locking Hackett up for 4 years was a great move at the time. He was the team's MVP, under 30, and pre-ufa. As much as I dislike Houle, I thought he did well getting and keeping Hackett. The team needed a solid #1 goalie to help develop Theo, and that's exactly what they got. As for Hackett, I feel really bad for him. If he were to play a full, healthy season as a number 1 goalie, I believe he'd be among the top 10 in the NHL. I'm really impressed at the positive attitude, and diligent work ethic, he's maintained despite things not going his way. Much more than I can say for Savage when things didn't go his way. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobs_HABit on Mar 7, 2002 8:48:04 GMT -5
I agree Andrew, at the time it was an excellent deal. Who was to know he would become injury prone over the next couple of seasons. Maybe if we had some D who caused opposing forwards to think twice before crashing the net we wouldn't lose goalies on a monthly basis. How many bodies fell on or over him on that play alone (I think I counted 3)?
Also, let's not forget he possibly saved us two points on that play as the puck was crossing the line as he knocked it away and that stretch is what caused the dislocation. Very sad, really. Not for us but I feel for Hack. He's been a true professional on this club ever since we got him. Anybody who has ever had a shoulder dislocation knows that if it's serious enough it can reoccur at the slightest incident and I think that's what we saw last night. This may plague him throughout his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 7, 2002 9:45:29 GMT -5
You have to wonder how many times a guy can get injured and come back before he says that it's time to pack it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by legaspesien on Mar 7, 2002 10:59:10 GMT -5
May be Hackett will decide to retired
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 7, 2002 12:42:30 GMT -5
Hindsight is 20/20. Locking Hackett up for 4 years was a great move at the time. He was the team's MVP, under 30, and pre-ufa. As much as I dislike Houle, I thought he did well getting and keeping Hackett. The team needed a solid #1 goalie to help develop Theo, and that's exactly what they got. As for Hackett, I feel really bad for him. If he were to play a full, healthy season as a number 1 goalie, I believe he'd be among the top 10 in the NHL. I'm really impressed at the positive attitude, and diligent work ethic, he's maintained despite things not going his way. Much more than I can say for Savage when things didn't go his way. I don't remember at the time if Hack's agent asked for a 4 year deal and if it was the only way they would accept a long term deal, but seems to me Reggie could have seen either Garon or Theodore would have been ready to take over the #1 role by now or next year.It's called vision. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 7, 2002 12:43:55 GMT -5
May be Hackett will decide to retired Could be,he's made his money,he has kids...who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on Mar 7, 2002 15:03:48 GMT -5
The idea of using Garon or Tarasov as a back up is something that we have talked about for a long time on this board. Peronaly, I think we have to give them a chance eventually. I would just it rather not be right now while we are fighting for our playoff lives. Unfortunatley, the injury to Hackett gives us no other alternative at the moment. Unless...now don't bite my head off, but how about Stephane Fiset? He would be fairly cheap to aquire. Possiblly a mid round draft chioce. Then we would have a solid backup for Theo if Hacketts shoulder is bad enough to keep him out for a long period of time. Then we could use Garon to try and get a guy like Tommy Kallio to shore up our scoring for the stretch drive. Then in the offseason, we could use either Hack or Fiset as bait or part of a package to fill another hole. I feel really bad for Hack. Then we give Tarasov one FULL year in the minors to adjust to the North American game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobs_HABit on Mar 7, 2002 15:41:50 GMT -5
I don't remember at the time if Hack's agent asked for a 4 year deal and if it was the only way they would accept a long term deal, but seems to me Reggie could have seen either Garon or Theodore would have been ready to take over the #1 role by now or next year.It's called vision. Easy now Marc. The NHL graveyard is full of so-called goalies ready for stardom within a year or two. One of the top rules of hockey is if you get a chance to sign a #1 goalie long term, you do it. Oh and don't bring up Roy, this discussion was regarding Reggie and Hack. When Reggie signed him he was coming off a season where he was the only reason we had a chance at the playoffs. His numbers from 96-97 until 98-99 included a .920 save percentage and a 2.24 goals against. Pretty good numbers if you ask me and it's not as if we gave $8 million a year. Heck we got him for half the price of the superstar goalies and I personally think he's just a notch below them. I'm sorry but I've always felt the need to defend Reggie especially when he's wrongfully accused. Although he did make a lot of mistakes, this wasn't one of them. If there was a mistake anywhere here, it's Savard's inability to trade a known commodity once Theo HAD proved himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 7, 2002 16:53:23 GMT -5
May be Hackett will decide to retired And leave 4 mil on the table...? I don't think so, it's Hackett last chance to really cash in and he will. I read somewhere that Hackett is the big loser of all this... I don't see it that way. At all. Hackett will undergo surgery this summer, it is said that recovery from that kind of surgery takes 4 months. Being injury prone, overpaid and just off a summer of inactivity due his surgery, HABS will leave him exposed at waivers but he won't be picked. We will end up having to pay the full 4mil of his contract and won't be able to move him. Then he becomes a UFA, will sign somewhere for sure, but at around 2mil and go on with his carreer. HABS lose all the way: * We don't have Hack as an insurance policy this year nor do we have a chance to grab an asset by trading him. * His insane salary will prevent us from going after anything serious in the UFA market this summer. * Garon and Tarasov have to be put on hold yet another year * We will lose him for nothing at the end of next year Why did we have to play him and risk what's happening now? We were in no obligation to play him and the risks of doing it anyway were obviously not calculated by those who decided to send him out. Bad Luck? ...Sometimes you make your own bad luck. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 7, 2002 18:20:48 GMT -5
The idea of using Garon or Tarasov as a back up is something that we have talked about for a long time on this board. Peronaly, I think we have to give them a chance eventually. I would just it rather not be right now while we are fighting for our playoff lives. Unfortunatley, the injury to Hackett gives us no other alternative at the moment. Unless...now don't bite my head off, but how about Stephane Fiset? He would be fairly cheap to aquire. Possiblly a mid round draft chioce. Then we would have a solid backup for Theo if Hacketts shoulder is bad enough to keep him out for a long period of time. Then we could use Garon to try and get a guy like Tommy Kallio to shore up our scoring for the stretch drive. Then in the offseason, we could use either Hack or Fiset as bait or part of a package to fill another hole. I feel really bad for Hack. Then we give Tarasov one FULL year in the minors to adjust to the North American game. I wouldn't mind Fiset.Especially for a 7th round pick or something like that. Kalio? nah, the guy is another fragile forward. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 7, 2002 18:24:22 GMT -5
Easy now Marc. The NHL graveyard is full of so-called goalies ready for stardom within a year or two. One of the top rules of hockey is if you get a chance to sign a #1 goalie long term, you do it. Oh and don't bring up Roy, this discussion was regarding Reggie and Hack. When Reggie signed him he was coming off a season where he was the only reason we had a chance at the playoffs. His numbers from 96-97 until 98-99 included a .920 save percentage and a 2.24 goals against. Pretty good numbers if you ask me and it's not as if we gave $8 million a year. Heck we got him for half the price of the superstar goalies and I personally think he's just a notch below them. I'm sorry but I've always felt the need to defend Reggie especially when he's wrongfully accused. Although he did make a lot of mistakes, this wasn't one of them. If there was a mistake anywhere here, it's Savard's inability to trade a known commodity once Theo HAD proved himself. The problem wasn't really the salary( I agree 3-4 million for a goalie just a notch under Hasek, Roy, Brodeur,etc is a great deal) but it was giving him a 4 year deal when you have 2 very talented, young goalies in your organization.I would love to go back in time and see if it was absolutely neccesary to give him a 4 year deal. I don't know how you can blame Savard for not dealing Hackett.Remember this:when Savard took over last year, Hackett had a broken hand, he came back waaaaaaaaay too early and was essentially a non-factor for the rest of the year.Very tough to convince teams to pickup a goalie who just missed almost a complete season with a broken hand.As for this year, every time Hackett has played and was about to increase his value, BANG! 2 serious injuries.Tough to deal a guy who has played about 30 games since 1999-2000. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 7, 2002 18:31:19 GMT -5
And leave 4 mil on the table...? I don't think so, it's Hackett last chance to really cash in and he will. I read somewhere that Hackett is the big loser of all this... I don't see it that way. At all. Hackett will undergo surgery this summer, it is said that recovery from that kind of surgery takes 4 months. Being injury prone, overpaid and just off a summer of inactivity due his surgery, HABS will leave him exposed at waivers but he won't be picked. We will end up having to pay the full 4mil of his contract and won't be able to move him. Then he becomes a UFA, will sign somewhere for sure, but at around 2mil and go on with his carreer. HABS lose all the way: * We don't have Hack as an insurance policy this year nor do we have a chance to grab an asset by trading him. * His insane salary will prevent us from going after anything serious in the UFA market this summer. * Garon and Tarasov have to be put on hold yet another year * We will lose him for nothing at the end of next year Why did we have to play him and risk what's happening now? We were in no obligation to play him and the risks of doing it anyway were obviously not calculated by those who decided to send him out. Bad Luck? ...Sometimes you make your own bad luck. <br> I was the one who said he was the big loser in this.The way I see it, his reputation is now of a guy being injury prone.You talk about teams wanting him for 2 million per year.Unless he has a great year next year,there is absolutely no chance a team will give him 2 million when he will be 35.There is a crop of great young goalies in the NHL and more on the way from the AHL(Ouellet,Noronen,Ahonen,Damphousse,etc) these guys will be in the league next year or the year after.Some goalies will simply be pushed out of a job, this could happen to Hackett. By the way, IF Hackett would retire after this year, wouldn't he get the 4 million he is going to get anyways? |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 7, 2002 21:02:15 GMT -5
Why did we have to play him, Doc? To confirm he was still a top goalie and worth something. Remember how his stock went up after his game against Chicago? From 'take him off my hands', he moved up to a 2nd round pick at least and just one or two more good games before the trade deadline and he would have been excellent trade material. Some day, we'll shake this bad luck streak.
|
|
