|
|
Post by blny on Oct 8, 2003 7:25:28 GMT -5
Skilled defencemen, who aren't afraid to hit, are hard to come by. Ones who could be a Chelios-esque defenceman are even harder to find. Any top flight d-man is often held in higher regard than a big centre. IMO Hainsey has the makings of a Chelios type of career, and I don't want to see that happen anywhere but in Montreal. The kid needs to play. He suffered a set back last season, but let's see how he rebounds. Even if this year is a wash, I'd still be hesitant to trade him unless we were getting defence in return. Earlier mentions/comparisons to Markov's slow rise are bang on. Defencemen take longer to develop, and quarterbacks sometimes longer. I don't think we can give up on a strong puck mover.
Svitov is a great prospect. No doubt. I too was not impressed with his actions at the WJC, but one would hope that he's grown up a bit. We all do things, as kids, that we may not be proud of. I certainly would not hold that event against him.
If I was management, I wouldn't be trading a defenceman with equally great potential, for a centreman. Big physical centres with some skill grow on trees in comparison to stud defenceman. If T-Bay would take Brisebois or Perreault, and a pick (with us eating salary) I'd do it. Still, Gainey isn't looking to trade at this point. When he does, you can bet it won't revolve around a desire to remove young talent for the sake of bringing some in. When he does start to move bodies, it will be in an attempt to add young assets and not break even.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 8, 2003 7:32:43 GMT -5
The Habs have depth on defence? We may have depth, as in a surplus of bodies, but we don't have depth, as in quality. If we deal Hainsey, then Komo is the only sure-fire d-man prospect we have. Guys like Archer, Shasby and O'Byrne have not even played full seasons in the AHL yet. As HA said, good d-men take a few years to develop. Markov was in all kinds of trade rumours a couple of years ago and now he's our best defender. Doc, I know that you said that TBay placed Svitov in a checking role, but I remember when he was drafted, he was being portrayed as a Holik-style, two-way centre. While a player like that would be nice to have, I'm not willing to trade our 2nd best defence prospect to get him. If we are going to deal Hainsey, IMO it should be for a big, offensive centre as opposed to a big, defensive one. This type of trade won't get done with Hainsey alone, but he could be the centerpiece of a package that could potentially seal the deal. As PTH said, I'm not at all in favor of chasing Hainsey out of town for a bag of pucks. I do believe he's a formidable prospect and that is why I think he'd be a tempting bait to get a guy like Svitov. I like the Holik comparison. An intimidating guy that creates havoc, can score you 25-30g, as well as shut down any oponents if need be. Many felt that if the HABS would have been able to put their hands on Holik it would have totally changed the team dynamic... Frankly I can't think of a more pressing need than that of a big, skilled, rough, young center. A notch over Svitov, in the form of more offensive potential, are the Thornton, Heatly, Stall, Lecavalier of this world which also would be really nice but you usually can't put your hands on this type guys because they quickly become franchise guy. And if by some miracle they become avalable, you must overpay like mad to get them and create glaring holes all over your lineup. I've given on thinking we could get those, it's like the Holly Graal quest. The other way is to draft them but you need to have a top 3 choice in a good draft year to do so. Something that I don't think, again, is likely to happen. On the other hand, the mother of all dmen isn't dead and drafting good defensive depth with middle of the pack draft choices is much easier then drafting offensive building blocks with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Oct 8, 2003 8:15:14 GMT -5
OK. Now I'm getting excited. Marc will vouch for me when I say that I have been on the Svitov bandwagon for the past year and have been clamoring for a trade between the Bolts and Habs.
With all the C depth in Tampa, Svitov is expendable, but the price would not be cheap for a former top 3 pick who is still extremely young. Svitov has Bobby Holik type upside, plus he has a bit of a mean streak which is just fine with me.
Tampa needs blueline depth and would be looking for Hainsey. Very tough call, but this is the kind of high risk/high return trade that can pay major dividends down the road. I would swallow hard and do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 8, 2003 8:16:54 GMT -5
I wouldn't deal Hainsey, personally. Quelle surprise, eh?
While I agree that we have a desperate need for some size down the middle, either 2nd or 3rd line (or 1st) and that a Hainsey for Svitov kind of deal is what it would take to get it done, I just wouldn't do it.
They always say that you should build a championship team from the nets on out. We have the goaltending. If all goes well, we will have the defense. Markov has arrived. Hainsey and Komisarek represent the difference between a good defense, and a great defense. Souray and Rivet are nice complimentary players, and I like them, but really, players like this aren't all that hard to obtain. They are nice 4th and 5th guys, on elite teams. Where would they be on the depth chart, if they played in Detroit? Behind Lidstrom, Chelios and Hatcher.
Actually, lets take Detroit's defense. Its a pretty good example of what I think an elite defense should be, and where we should be going:
Lidstrom: the puck moving, solid defensively, glue that holds it all together. Not physical, but quarterbacks the powerplay, and knows how to play positionally. This is the style of game Hainsey plays. Obviously not as good as Lidstrom, but same style.
Chelios: Not overly big, but a great puck mover, plays the powerplay, has a nasty streak. Very solid defensively. This is Markov.
Hatcher: Very big. Nasty. Plays very physical. Not the most offensively gifted, but can chip in and is a rock defensively. This is Komisarek.
Now if you remove one of those guys, you still have a very good defense, but its not a great defense. You have the St. Louis Blues, with two top end guys, but not much else. Same with Colorado. They have Blake and Foote, but the rest are iffy.
Trading Hainsey for Svitov wouldn't be a horrible move, but I wouldn't make it. If we did that, we'd always be looking for "just a little more defensive depth" as we make our runs for the Cup. Since we have it now, I'd prefer to keep it, and try to fill our other holes in other ways. Bird in the hand, being worth more than two in the bush, and all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Oct 8, 2003 9:08:00 GMT -5
I have to agree with Doc on this one. He makes a very valid point in that it's much easier to unearth a defensive prospect in the middle of the draft picking chart than a decent offensive player with grit to boot...both things we can use a good dose of right now. I can only surmise that one reason he's in Hamilton right now is to give Bob et al a good look at him and make an offer if there's interest. I also agree that a player like this, if he's as good as we're hoping he is, does come at a cost. Gainey will do the right thing. He's pretty good ya know.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 8, 2003 9:19:20 GMT -5
I wouldn't deal Hainsey, personally. Quelle surprise, eh? While I agree that we have a desperate need for some size down the middle, either 2nd or 3rd line (or 1st) and that a Hainsey for Svitov kind of deal is what it would take to get it done, I just wouldn't do it. They always say that you should build a championship team from the nets on out. We have the goaltending. If all goes well, we will have the defense. Markov has arrived. Hainsey and Komisarek represent the difference between a good defense, and a great defense. Souray and Rivet are nice complimentary players, and I like them, but really, players like this aren't all that hard to obtain. They are nice 4th and 5th guys, on elite teams. Where would they be on the depth chart, if they played in Detroit? Behind Lidstrom, Chelios and Hatcher. Actually, lets take Detroit's defense. Its a pretty good example of what I think an elite defense should be, and where we should be going: Lidstrom: the puck moving, solid defensively, glue that holds it all together. Not physical, but quarterbacks the powerplay, and knows how to play positionally. This is the style of game Hainsey plays. Obviously not as good as Lidstrom, but same style. Chelios: Not overly big, but a great puck mover, plays the powerplay, has a nasty streak. Very solid defensively. This is Markov. Hatcher: Very big. Nasty. Plays very physical. Not the most offensively gifted, but can chip in and is a rock defensively. This is Komisarek. Now if you remove one of those guys, you still have a very good defense, but its not a great defense. You have the St. Louis Blues, with two top end guys, but not much else. Same with Colorado. They have Blake and Foote, but the rest are iffy. Trading Hainsey for Svitov wouldn't be a horrible move, but I wouldn't make it. If we did that, we'd always be looking for "just a little more defensive depth" as we make our runs for the Cup. Since we have it now, I'd prefer to keep it, and try to fill our other holes in other ways. Bird in the hand, being worth more than two in the bush, and all that. ...the best defense is offense, high risk/high reward and a penny saved lies in the eye of the beholder... What took you so long..., Hainsey was almost trying out his Tampa Bay jersey... sheesh!...there was a time you were the quickest draw (well second quickest) in the west but now you're more like the cavalery But I disgress, on with this debate so I can finish prying that young dmen prospect outa your cold gripping fingers...  I like your Red Wings exemple because really the championship editions of the Wings were always relying on 2 top level dmen (Lidstrom and Chelios) and a solid supporting cast. Hatcher is there this year because Chelios, God bless him, can no longer be the Chelios he was. The same kind of receipe was used by the Devils Stevens/Neidermyer + strong supporting cast, the Stars with Zubov and Hatcher. HABS can be a strong competitor with a core defense based on guys like Komi, Markov and Souray. Even a better one when you add Hainsey, I agree, but really our offense is pathetic and we'll have to improve it IMO by dealing from our position of strenght. There is just no way to imporve up front by dealing forwards. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Oct 8, 2003 9:36:00 GMT -5
OK. Now I'm getting excited. Marc will vouch for me when I say that I have been on the Svitov bandwagon for the past year and have been clamoring for a trade between the Bolts and Habs. Yep, you have been on that bandwagon. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 8, 2003 9:37:05 GMT -5
...the best defense is offense, high risk/high reward and a penny saved lies in the eye of the beholder... What took you so long..., Hainsey was almost trying out his Tampa Bay jersey... sheesh!...there was a time you were the quickest draw (well second quickest) in the west but now you're more like the cavalery . BC is getting older AND slower at an alarming pace. Wild origami orgies while watching the Hab's play can have a devastating effect on the body......to say nothing of the mind........ Unless there is a clear cut case that we are getting a 1st line (Thornton Junior) center then I say we are going to seriously regret trading Hainsey. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Oct 8, 2003 10:06:48 GMT -5
Unless there is a clear cut case that we are getting a 1st line (Thornton Junior) center then I say we are going to seriously regret trading Hainsey. I think you might be overestimating Hainsey's trade value in terms to commanding a Thornton-esque player in return. Or maybe not - this is where Bob Gainey needs to call Andre Savard into his office and have a long talk about Ron Hainsey. I think Ron has all the physical tools to be an elite defenseman in this league: size, skating ability, puck skills. On the other hand, the so-called experts said the same thing about Karl Dykhuis way back when. If BG and AS decide that they just don't think Hainsey will be any more than a top 4 defenseman in this league, then you do this deal right now. Doc is bang on - our offense is pathetic and our center depth is the single biggest organizational need. We also have 3 prime D prospects, and although it would be a clear gamble to trade one away, I think you have to take calculated risks sometimes and deal from strength to address team needs. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Oct 8, 2003 10:12:56 GMT -5
I don't think Svitov is in the class of Nathan Horton or Eric Staal, so I'd be leery of trading Hainsey for him. The Habs don't have a warehouse full of defense prospects with scoring potential. A middle-round pick next year, even if Gainey and Savard strike gold, wouldn't be ready to step in for another 4-5 years. What do they do in the meantime?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem on Oct 8, 2003 10:39:41 GMT -5
Like I said previously, I dont see TB wanting Hainsey, why would they? they're getting to the point where they can become contenders. They would more willing to hear about an experienced top 4 defensemen. We only have 2, Rivet and Brisebois, but what team would want to trade a future Bobby Holik for them? Probably the same that traded Pitkanen for Fedotenko. Hainsey is gonna stay in Montreal, he didn't even get a chance and its not like theres any kind of quality depth on our blue line, pretty much everyone is expendable and after Ronny theres no one who's a top prospect on our blue line. TB on the other hand have a great center depth chart and Svitov could be a great trading asset. If we're to try to get him though, we'd have to beat about 29 other offers though. TB's probably gonna go into the season and analyse the situation, then they'll listen to trade offers. The problem is, can we make a better offer then 29 other teams? It seems to me that theres probably a team with a pricey top 4 defensemen who's better then Brisebois and Rivet who also need a big center. If Svitov is on the market, there may be a lot of competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 8, 2003 10:51:24 GMT -5
Svitov is a guy I'd love to obtain, but I'd like to know a bit more about how he's playing lately before making a move for him. He didn't impress me at all last season the few times I saw him, I prefered Alexeev much more (but he's a big young right wing, not the center of the future we need). I think Svitov has #2 center written all over him, and with his size and defensive game he could be an absolutely perfect fit for our team. Personally I wouldn't be at all upset to see a guy like Rivet and a pick moved for Svitov... Hopefully we can get rid of Perreault and Juneau by Christmas time if we did make this move, and go with a Koivu, Ribeiro, Svitov, Kilger combo down the middle... Once Svitov develops into a #2 guy I don't think anyone would be crying about our lack of size down the middle anymore. Agreed. Perrault, Brisebois, Audette, Traverse, Dackell, Juneau are all available almost free. I don't want to give up on Hainsey (great potential) or Plecanek, but I also think that Svitov AND Alexeev have great potential. I would put together a compelling package to get those two. Svitov and Alexeev both have potential and they will be BIG guys in the NHL. Big is good, fast is good, but we've done Size Matters to death and no one has changed anyone elses opinion. Perrault, Brisebois, Audette and Hainsey for Svitov and Alexeev. (If they'll take some more trade filler we have lots. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 8, 2003 11:04:53 GMT -5
I don't think Svitov is in the class of Nathan Horton or Eric Staal, so I'd be leery of trading Hainsey for him. The Habs don't have a warehouse full of defense prospects with scoring potential. A middle-round pick next year, even if Gainey and Savard strike gold, wouldn't be ready to step in for another 4-5 years. What do they do in the meantime? I agree, Svitov isn't in the same ball park as a Staal. Someone mentioned Holik kind of upside and I think that's quite accurate. But as Boston_Hab said, if Svitov was in the same ball park of a Staal, than Hainsey wouldn't cut it as an offer. |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Oct 8, 2003 11:12:26 GMT -5
At this point, dealing Hainsey is a no-no. Before addressing the center position, I would like the team to get bigger on the wings, only because it will be easier to address through the trade market.
LW: Bulis, Hossa, Sunny, Langdon (or another goon)
RW: Audette, Zednik, Ryder, Ward
Our other top prospects on the wing are mid-sized Euros (Zhogin, Kasty) and an all-purpose mid-sized cannonball named Higgins.
We can live with the current Koivu / Perreault / Juneau setup for this season. It's not perfect but with upwards of $11 million coming off the payroll at the end of this season and with a downward free agnecy market, we could land that elusive center easier than we think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 8, 2003 11:16:48 GMT -5
Like I said previously, I dont see TB wanting Hainsey, why would they? they're getting to the point where they can become contenders. They would more willing to hear about an experienced top 4 defensemen. We only have 2, Rivet and Brisebois, but what team would want to trade a future Bobby Holik for them? Probably the same that traded Pitkanen for Fedotenko. Hainsey is gonna stay in Montreal, he didn't even get a chance and its not like theres any kind of quality depth on our blue line, pretty much everyone is expendable and after Ronny theres no one who's a top prospect on our blue line. TB on the other hand have a great center depth chart and Svitov could be a great trading asset. If we're to try to get him though, we'd have to beat about 29 other offers though. TB's probably gonna go into the season and analyse the situation, then they'll listen to trade offers. The problem is, can we make a better offer then 29 other teams? It seems to me that theres probably a team with a pricey top 4 defensemen who's better then Brisebois and Rivet who also need a big center. If Svitov is on the market, there may be a lot of competition. TB is on a tight budget so going out to get a high profile UFA might not be an option. Just as well, they are on the upswing but they're not contenders yet IMO. Getting a prospect stud on D who'll be afortable right now and well in his game in a season or 2 could be what they need. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Oct 8, 2003 11:36:07 GMT -5
At this point, dealing Hainsey is a no-no. Before addressing the center position, I would like the team to get bigger on the wings, only because it will be easier to address through the trade market. LW: Bulis, Hossa, Sunny, Langdon (or another goon) RW: Audette, Zednik, Ryder, Ward Our other top prospects on the wing are mid-sized Euros (Zhogin, Kasty) and an all-purpose mid-sized cannonball named Higgins. We can live with the current Koivu / Perreault / Juneau setup for this season. It's not perfect but with upwards of $11 million coming off the payroll at the end of this season and with a downward free agnecy market, we could land that elusive center easier than we think. Wings are not as pressing a need as centre, IMO. You could even argue that we could be set on the wing for the next 5 years. 2 years away... Hossa/Koivu/Zednik Kastsitsyn/Svitov/Perezhogin Bulis/Higgins/Ward I think you're in pretty good shape there without a bona fide power forward, especially if Kat emerges as the offensive force we hope he will and Higgins emerges as our answer to John Madden. You've got good size on the wings with Hossa, Bulis, Ward, and Zednik, good balance at centre, and pretty good speed. On defense, we would have to go fishing to find a replacement for Hainsey, but we would still have lots of forwards in the system as trade bait (Pleks, Milroy, Urquhart). Also I agree with whoever said that its easier to find a good dman in the middle rounds than it is to find an all-around pivot like Svitov. Even superstars like Lidstrom (3rd round) and Chelios (2nd round) weren't high draft picks. |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Oct 8, 2003 11:43:56 GMT -5
Wings are not as pressing a need as centre, IMO. You could even argue that we could be set on the wing for the next 5 years. 2 years away... Hossa/Koivu/Zednik Kastsitsyn/Svitov/Perezhogin Bulis/Higgins/Ward I think you're in pretty good shape there without a bona fide power forward, especially if Kat emerges as the offensive force we hope he will and Higgins emerges as our answer to John Madden. You've got good size on the wings with Hossa, Bulis, Ward, and Zednik, good balance at centre, and pretty good speed. On defense, we would have to go fishing to find a replacement for Hainsey, but we would still have lots of forwards in the system as trade bait (Pleks, Milroy, Urquhart). Also I agree with whoever said that its easier to find a good dman in the middle rounds than it is to find an all-around pivot like Svitov. Even superstars like Lidstrom (3rd round) and Chelios (2nd round) weren't high draft picks. I disagree ... Take the path of least resistance. The downward free agency market WILL give us a second or third line big center. Size on the wings is EASIER to address via trade than the center position. |
|
|
|
Post by Kareem on Oct 8, 2003 12:04:30 GMT -5
Doc your right, but you gotta admit they seem to have adopted a more "win now" attitude and theyre currently in the market for a top 4 defensemen, I doubt they'd want a struggling prospect. They're budget might be tight but if they give a good product on the ice they might get more fans. I'd think they'd want someone like Mclaren, around 2-3M dollars. Rivet might be interesting for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 8, 2003 12:16:02 GMT -5
Hainsey is gonna stay in Montreal, he didn't even get a chance and its not like theres any kind of quality depth on our blue line, pretty much everyone is expendable and after Ronny theres no one who's a top prospect on our blue line. Ummmm ... methinks you're forgetting someone. He's 6'4", 230lbs, wears #8, played for the University of Michigan, and was the call up in the second half last year (instead of Hainsey). Ring any bells? |
|
|
|
Post by Kareem on Oct 8, 2003 12:18:36 GMT -5
Like I said after Ronny theres no depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 8, 2003 12:23:39 GMT -5
Like I said after Ronny theres no depth. I see what you meant now . I read your post as though he was at the top of the list. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 8, 2003 12:24:28 GMT -5
Wings are not as pressing a need as centre, IMO. You could even argue that we could be set on the wing for the next 5 years. 2 years away... Hossa/Koivu/Zednik Kastsitsyn/Svitov/Perezhogin Bulis/Higgins/Ward That looks good IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 8, 2003 12:26:40 GMT -5
Doc your right, but you gotta admit they seem to have adopted a more "win now" attitude and theyre currently in the market for a top 4 defensemen, I doubt they'd want a struggling prospect. They're budget might be tight but if they give a good product on the ice they might get more fans. I'd think they'd want someone like Mclaren, around 2-3M dollars. Rivet might be interesting for them. Hey, I wouldn't mind trading Rivet...wouldn't mind at all but some might say I have a bias... |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Oct 8, 2003 12:35:24 GMT -5
These hypothetical trades of 30-somethings for prospects are too asymmetrical to come to pass. Rivet, Brisebois, and Perreault aren't the final piece of the puzzle that would make a team a serious Cup contender. Svitov may not be NHL-ready right now, but he has potential, and Tampa Bay would (and should) be reluctant to trade him for someone with limited unexpired shelf life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem on Oct 8, 2003 12:36:58 GMT -5
I agree it sure looks good, but I wouldn't count Ryder out just yet. I think we should stop this thread, it'll make people disapointed when they realize we're not getting Svitov  |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 8, 2003 12:38:21 GMT -5
Hey, I wouldn't mind trading Rivet...wouldn't mind at all but some might say I have a bias... It depends on what is coming in return. I'd just as soon keep until Komisarek has had at least a full season under his belt. If the offer was good enough (ie he was part of a package for Svitov, maybe with Perreault and something else) then I would consider it. Rivet is cheap, and pretty darn reliable. Add to that he's not afraid to get his nose dirty, and he is pretty valuable. He'd probably garner more interest from other teams than Breezy would. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 8, 2003 12:40:01 GMT -5
I agree it sure looks good, but I wouldn't count Ryder out just yet. I think we should stop this thread, it'll make people disapointed when they realize we're not getting Svitov Well at least we can say we have a top notch center prospect playing in our farm |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Oct 8, 2003 12:41:16 GMT -5
Yes, Rivet would fetch more than Brisebois from other teams, but the thread deals specifically with Svitov.
I agree, the thread should be stopped. It's futile, as are scores of similar threads. So much energy devoted to concocting imaginary trades!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem on Oct 8, 2003 12:46:09 GMT -5
First of all, we can all have dreams right? Second, that Rivet suggestion was obviously not a one on one trade, Craig has a pretty good reputation if you consider he was named to team Canada and performed pretty well, so its not that far fetched, especially after that Pitkanen nonsense. If they didnt want a young promising future all-star defensemen and gave him away for practically nothing, I doubt they'd want Hainsey. It sure as hell ain't gonna make them contenders, but it might give them some much needed dependable experience and toughness on the blueline. If Rivet can play rough like he did before his injury, he can be a welcome addition to any playoff team.
BTW, I just realized TB is the opposite of us, they only have one forward under 6ft tall and tahts Saint-Louis, after that they only have one guy under 6'1" and its Stillman. They're a huge team.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 8, 2003 13:24:21 GMT -5
Ask yourself this; would you deal Komisarek for Svitov? In my mind, it’s the same thing as dealing Hainsey for Svitov…
|
|
