|
|
Post by WhyteKnight63 on Mar 2, 2002 17:14:26 GMT -5
Most of you are all pushing for the Habs to trade Hackett to Toronto BECAUSE their #1 goaltender is injured and they need a #1 goaltender for the playoff run AND the playoffs.
Don't we? What if Theodore gets injured AGAIN (might I remind you?)?
People have very short memories. It seems to me just a few months ago, our playoff hopes were almost dashed because BOTH our #1 goaltenders were out with injuries. If you search deep within your memories of the last couple of years, you'll remember several instances where either of our #1 goaltenders have been injured...
Garon and Michaud made it very clear that they were both at least a couple of years away from the playoffs. Do you really want to rely on those 2 for a playoff run and the playoffs. Or maybe Tarasov and Lindsay? I sure don't.
Hackett is still a #1 goaltender on this team, regardless of what some of you think. He just doesn't get the chance to prove it on a consistent basis. Sit Theodore on the bench for 14 games and tell him to come out fresh and I bet you he doesn't! But Hackett did! And what does he get for it? He gets to sit again! Talk about motivating! And that AFTER Therrien claiming that he'll go with the HOT GOALTENDER!!! We'll Theo messed up his last start, Hackett shined in his, getting the 1st star and he gets the shaft!
More fuel for the Therrien bonfire... (but I digress here)
Do you really want to be like the Leafs and rely on two lesser goaltenders for your playoff hopes? I don't, and I hope that Habs management sees it that way...
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by habmeister on Mar 2, 2002 18:25:35 GMT -5
I don't believe in keeping a backup goaltender in case your #1 goalie gets hurt. Using that logic we can keep Hackett on this team forever and Tarasov and Garon will never get a sniff of the big time. On the other hand i do believe that a solid backup is important. That is why i'm advocating trading Hackett and a D-man for a #2 goalie and a better D-man. It is a salary dump and we upgrade on Defense and still have a decent backup.
I can't see any reason to shun a trade of that magnitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 2, 2002 18:46:44 GMT -5
While I understand what you are saying, there is a very small window of opportunity here. Next year, Mathieu Garon will be eligible for the waiver draft, and since teams can only protect two goalies, one of Theodore, Hackett or Garon must be exposed. That's how the Detroit Red Wings lost Chris Osgood last fall.
So the question is then, if we get a decent offer for Hackett, do we take it and hope Theo doesn't get injured in the remaining 15 games of the season? Or do we pass on it, play Hackett 4, maybe 5 times from here on out, and then lose him for nothing in the waiver draft?
This team is not going to go anywhere this year, even if we make the playoffs. I mean geez, we are going to make a mad dash down the final stretch just so we can play the big, bad Philadelphia Flyers in the first round. While I know anything can happen come the second season, if I were a betting man I know which way I would be leaning in such a matchup. So realistically we should be looking at picking up assets that are going to help us next year, as well as this. I am not saying we should just dump Hackett for anything, but the odds are pretty good that we are going to lose him this summer anyways, and if Andre Savard thinks that Hack's value is at his highest right now, then I think he should pull the trigger. Right now Toronto needs a goalie. In the summer, Montreal will need to dump a goalie. Huge difference.
Sell high. Jeff Hackett's value could very well be at its highest in years. Its not going to get higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 2, 2002 19:24:27 GMT -5
Good point BC. While I'm sure another 2 home games in the playoffs will help the bottom line, the other bottom line is that we're going to be much better next year than this. Koivu and Audette back, Hainsey ready for prime time...perhaps even Komisaurus, since he doesn't need to get any stronger to play in this league, just experience. Hossa will be primed for the NHL and all the young guys we have right now on the big team finding their way through the press box (sorry, can't resist Therrien bashing), are bound to have a much bigger impact in 2002-03 than anything we can do the rest of this year.
Garon has been burning up the AHL recently and may very well be ready for a backup role. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with him or Tarasov as the back-up. Hackett will have to be traded before the waiver draft (assuming the Habs don't have any more freebie years left for goalie exemptions since the last expansion). His trade value has to be better right now, when he can help a playoff team, than this summer, when he's effectively another season older. So it really makes no economic or talent sense to keep him any longer than the trade deadline. If we need to keep Theo healthy, let's just dispose of the smurfs in front of him. I think it's possible, yes, even despite Therrien, to make the playoffs this year, without the need for Hackett. Getting something useful for him would only improve those odds.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhyteKnight63 on Mar 2, 2002 20:36:55 GMT -5
Good point BC. While I'm sure another 2 home games in the playoffs will help the bottom line, the other bottom line is that we're going to be much better next year than this. Koivu and Audette back, Hainsey ready for prime time...perhaps even Komisaurus, since he doesn't need to get any stronger to play in this league, just experience. Hossa will be primed for the NHL and all the young guys we have right now on the big team finding their way through the press box (sorry, can't resist Therrien bashing), are bound to have a much bigger impact in 2002-03 than anything we can do the rest of this year. Garon has been burning up the AHL recently and may very well be ready for a backup role. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with him or Tarasov as the back-up. Hackett will have to be traded before the waiver draft (assuming the Habs don't have any more freebie years left for goalie exemptions since the last expansion). His trade value has to be better right now, when he can help a playoff team, than this summer, when he's effectively another season older. So it really makes no economic or talent sense to keep him any longer than the trade deadline. If we need to keep Theo healthy, let's just dispose of the smurfs in front of him. I think it's possible, yes, even despite Therrien, to make the playoffs this year, without the need for Hackett. Getting something useful for him would only improve those odds. First of all, although it would be nice IF Hainsey was ready for prime time. Is he really? Is he DOMINATING the AHL? Not to my limited knowledge, that is my knowledge is limited to what I read on the internet. Nowhere have I seen anything that leads me to believe that he is ready to shine in the NHL. Therefore, his development at the AHL level is not done yet, hence he needs at least another year in the minors. Komisarek, still in Michigan, says he wants to finish his schooling first and foremost. I belive that means another 2 years of University hockey. Then, supposing the same kind of development as Hainsey, still 2 more years in the AHL. That means don't hold your breath on Komisarek for another 4 years if he reamins in school, 2 years if he's in Quebec next year. On Garon, if he couldn't stop a puck in the NHL 2 or 3 months ago, why would he be capable now? Why not trade him instead of Hackett? That would take care of the glut in goaltenders. If you believe that he is so good,why not trade him where he would actually play? He would not get the appropriate ice-time in the NHL. Meanwhile, I'd feel much better with Hackett in net the next time Theodore goes down to injury. Habaroni and cheese and BC: As you (Shane) stated, you do not believe in keeping a backup goaltender in case your #1 goalie gets hurt. That's fine. Look where it got Toronto. That's the point I'm trying to make. As far as Tarasov and Garon getting a sniff at the NHL, first they have to be ready for it! Injuries to one of our goaltenders opens a backup spot for them. Trading them also can give them a sniff at it. If we can't keep Hackett-Theodore as #1a & #1b, how can we keep Theodore-Garon as #1a & #1b (if Garon is as good as some people make him out to be.)? Concerning our playoff hopes, it doesn't matter how far we make it in, as long as we MAKE IT IN!!! That is the only chance we have of attracting the kind of free agents we need to get better. We are a better team. we KNOW we are a better team. We are doing better than all the media folks thought we would (From what I saw from their predictions before the season started, we were ranked 12th to 15th in the Conference!). Now, we have to convince NHL players that we are serious about our improvement and the only way to do that is by making the playoffs AND offering them a lineup that they would believe in. Sorry Garon and Tarasov do not fit that mould! Same goes if we trade half our depth for 1 player (see Lecavalier trade rumours). For years, we've bitched, nagged and complained about our lousy goaltending, about our lousy players, about our lousy depth in our organization. Why, oh why do you guys insist on going back there? ?As soon as we are starting to get an NHL lineup, you guys all want to go back to the Houle-S.Savard type organization? Personally, I want a Stanley Cup again for the Habs. We will not get it with 1 superstar who has no one to play with and shoddy goaltending, if Theodore goes down. The only to do it is to have a solid lineup from the goals out. But, hey, what do I know? Andre Savard will do what he will and hopefully it will lead to a parade down Ste-Catherine sooner than later. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 2, 2002 21:38:57 GMT -5
It doesn't matter whether we trade Hackett or Garon, except for the matter of salary. We will lose one for sure in the waiver draft. Hackett is better right now, Garon may be better in the long run. Flip a coin. Hackett may get you more right now.
I have to disagree with you quite strongly on Hainsey and Komisarek. Hainsey first. "Is he dominating in the AHL right now?". To me, it really doesn't matter. I'd rather have him on the ice than Traverse, Quintal, Robidas, Bouillon et al.
I'll bet you a couple of cases of Heineken (what can I say?...I can't get Molson Golden here) that Komisarek won't spend 4 years in University. I suspect he won't be back next year. He can go back and get his degree after he retires. Let's do the math. If he leaves now, he gets 2 years at $1M. Let's say he pays 50% in taxes and nets $1M. That money....compounded at 8%, say over a 12 year career. That's 2.5 million. I think he can pay for the last 2 years of University with that money. Heck, he can buy the degree and not spend the 2 years studying. When these guys get drafted out of US colleges, they're not ready to play in the NHL, so they say all the right things..."I'm going to get my degree, help out the team, yada yada yada". During the year, if they improve and their NHL team expresses an interest in signing them, they start to seriously consider the option. It's a no-brainer. Wouldn't you? Komi will be in Quebec next year, perhaps for part of the year. The Habs defense just isn't tough enough to be without him for long. Store this post and pull it out again next March. My crystal ball has spoken.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 2, 2002 22:17:39 GMT -5
Actually, Hainsey is doing quite well in the AHL. He has been described as the Cits best defenceman, he made the AHL All Star team (notching 4 points in the game) and Andre Savard was quoted as saying that were it not for his injury he probably would have been with Montreal already. Is he dominating? I don't know about that, but he has done pretty much everything that has been expected and hoped for down in the minors, and he will be given every opportunity to make the team next year. They can't really call him up this year because it would mean having to pass somebody like Markov or Bouillon through waivers, and knowing Michel Therrien he would just sit him in the stands anyways.
Komisarek may or may not finish his college career, that I do not know. But if he spends another two years in Michigan, he will almost certainly step into the NHL right away, skipping the AHL. If he has to spend two more years in college, and then another two more years in the AHL, well, by that time he will be pushing 25 and we can pretty much call him a bust. I don't think that will happen.
Nobody is saying that we don't need a backup goaltender. What we are saying is that we have lots of other, more pressing needs, goaltending is our one strength, and you should always deal from your strengths. Yes, it is a risk that Theodore will then get injured and our playoff chances will be screwed, but what is the alternative? Keep Hackett and then lose him to the Atlanta Thrashers for NOTHING in the waiver draft? Try to deal him in the summer? We have tried to deal him in the summer for three years now, with no success. The Detroit Red Wings tried to deal Chris Osgood last summer (a man with much more appeal than Jeff Hackett) and they couldn't find one single team willing to part with a 9th rounder for him. Not one. They lost him for nothing. That could happen to us.
You ask why don't we trade Garon instead, to ease the goalie jam? Well, first of all, I have already suggested it. But more importantly, there is no market for Garon. The Leafs don't want a prospect to tide them over, they want Jeff Hackett. If they want to go with a kid, they will just go with that Sebastien Centomo guy. Do you hear Garon's name mentioned in rumours? No, because nobody is interested in Garon, just as nobody was interested in Hackett one week ago, just as nobody will be interested in Hackett come March 20th, the day after the trade deadline.
This is it. If its not done now, we will not get ANYTHING for Jeff Hackett. Montreal plays 13 games after the trade deadline until the end of the season. Is having Hackett as an insurance policy for 13 games worth losing him for NOTHING? Or, should we take the chance that Theodore will stay healthy for 13 games, and get a player, a prospect or a couple of good picks for a guy who won't be with the team next year anyways? What if the Leafs offer Brad Boyes, but we say no because we want to keep Hackett? What if Theodore then plays every single game after the trade deadline (why wouldn't he?), we lose Hackett in the summer and Boyes becomes a star?
We have good goaltending, and we will still have good goaltending if (when) Hackett leaves. But by trading him instead of letting him walk for nothing, we can INCREASE our depth, make our team better in areas where it isn't so good. You have to give in order to get, and in this case we are fortunate to have something that somebody else needs. Why wouldn't we deal if a good offer came along?
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 3, 2002 12:13:13 GMT -5
Most of you are all pushing for the Habs to trade Hackett to Toronto BECAUSE their #1 goaltender is injured and they need a #1 goaltender for the playoff run AND the playoffs. Don't we? What if Theodore gets injured AGAIN (might I remind you?)? People have very short memories. It seems to me just a few months ago, our playoff hopes were almost dashed because BOTH our #1 goaltenders were out with injuries. If you search deep within your memories of the last couple of years, you'll remember several instances where either of our #1 goaltenders have been injured... Garon and Michaud made it very clear that they were both at least a couple of years away from the playoffs. Do you really want to rely on those 2 for a playoff run and the playoffs. Or maybe Tarasov and Lindsay? I sure don't. Hackett is still a #1 goaltender on this team, regardless of what some of you think. He just doesn't get the chance to prove it on a consistent basis. Sit Theodore on the bench for 14 games and tell him to come out fresh and I bet you he doesn't! But Hackett did! And what does he get for it? He gets to sit again! Talk about motivating! And that AFTER Therrien claiming that he'll go with the HOT GOALTENDER!!! We'll Theo messed up his last start, Hackett shined in his, getting the 1st star and he gets the shaft! More fuel for the Therrien bonfire... (but I digress here) Do you really want to be like the Leafs and rely on two lesser goaltenders for your playoff hopes? I don't, and I hope that Habs management sees it that way... Cheers! what's the logic?? well,you have 2 pretty good goalies and the last time I checked,you can't play BOTH at the same time.So why keep both of them,when your team needs a physical d-man and at least 1 if not 2 big forwards??? This is just so simple to me.IF we were the Flyers and had depth everywhere and a great team,I would have no problem with keeping Hackett.But we don't have a good team,we don't have a ton of depth,so deal an asset who will probably play 2-3 games down the stretch to get a guy who will play 20 down the stretch and help you out.It's logic. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 3, 2002 12:15:50 GMT -5
While I understand what you are saying, there is a very small window of opportunity here. Next year, Mathieu Garon will be eligible for the waiver draft, and since teams can only protect two goalies, one of Theodore, Hackett or Garon must be exposed. That's how the Detroit Red Wings lost Chris Osgood last fall. So the question is then, if we get a decent offer for Hackett, do we take it and hope Theo doesn't get injured in the remaining 15 games of the season? Or do we pass on it, play Hackett 4, maybe 5 times from here on out, and then lose him for nothing in the waiver draft? This team is not going to go anywhere this year, even if we make the playoffs. I mean geez, we are going to make a mad dash down the final stretch just so we can play the big, bad Philadelphia Flyers in the first round. While I know anything can happen come the second season, if I were a betting man I know which way I would be leaning in such a matchup. So realistically we should be looking at picking up assets that are going to help us next year, as well as this. I am not saying we should just dump Hackett for anything, but the odds are pretty good that we are going to lose him this summer anyways, and if Andre Savard thinks that Hack's value is at his highest right now, then I think he should pull the trigger. Right now Toronto needs a goalie. In the summer, Montreal will need to dump a goalie. Huge difference. Sell high. Jeff Hackett's value could very well be at its highest in years. Its not going to get higher. Excellent point BC.IF we don't trade Hackett now while his value is at highest because of a "fear" we are going to lose either him or a talented young goalie for nothing.As you said,his value may never be higher.We need help.Time to make a deal.Man,too bad the Leafs don't have Dany Markov anymore.He would have looked great in a Habs uniform.. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 3, 2002 13:19:44 GMT -5
Hainsey's stats:anyone got them? Hainsey: 48 games played, 7 goals, 20 assists, 27 points, +11. 18 PIM, 4 powerplay goals, 2 game winning goals. For comparison sake, Hossa: 41 games played, 14 goals, 15 assists, 29 points, +2. 18 PIM, 4 powerplay goals, 2 game winning goals. Hainsey is the leading scorer for the Citadelles defence, 5 points ahead of Francis Bouillon, 7 points ahead of Martie Jarventie, 12 points ahead of Mathieu Descoteaux. He is second on the team in +/- behind Craig Darby's +18, and 3 ahead of the 2nd highest defenceman, Genady Razin. Bouillon was +2, Jarventie is -11, Descoteaux -8. Hainsey is 6'3, 200lbs, and he will turn 21 in 3 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Mar 3, 2002 13:46:19 GMT -5
Hainsey: 48 games played, 7 goals, 20 assists, 27 points, +11. 18 PIM, 4 powerplay goals, 2 game winning goals. For comparison sake, Hossa: 41 games played, 14 goals, 15 assists, 29 points, +2. 18 PIM, 4 powerplay goals, 2 game winning goals. Hainsey is the leading scorer for the Citadelles defence, 5 points ahead of Francis Bouillon, 7 points ahead of Martie Jarventie, 12 points ahead of Mathieu Descoteaux. He is second on the team in +/- behind Craig Darby's +18, and 3 ahead of the 2nd highest defenceman, Genady Razin. Bouillon was +2, Jarventie is -11, Descoteaux -8. Hainsey is 6'3, 200lbs, and he will turn 21 in 3 weeks. Thanks.Those stats are very good.A +11 is sweet and he is averaging around 0.6 point per game.Very good for any d-man.Don't like those 18 PIM...anyone know if he's got a mean streak? |
|
