|
|
Post by blny on Oct 8, 2003 13:42:01 GMT -5
Ask yourself this; would you deal Komisarek for Svitov? In my mind, it’s the same thing as dealing Hainsey for Svitov… Exactically! Meaning no. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Oct 8, 2003 15:26:45 GMT -5
Ask yourself this; would you deal Komisarek for Svitov? In my mind, it’s the same thing as dealing Hainsey for Svitov… No it's not, or at least not to the extent that the Habs organization may think that Komisarek has more upside than Hainsey, or that given we already have a skill guy in Markov, the team might feel that Hainsey is more expendable than Komisarek. Honestly, I haven't seen Svitov nearly enough to say that he's worth either one of them. That's for Bob Gainey and Andre Savard to decide. But if they do feel that Svitov is a legit top 2 centre, and given that he has all the physical attributes this team is looking for, then I think it's a deal that makes sense. Like you said before, this is a deal that makes sense, but you would just prefer to keep the emerging blueline intact and deal with our size problems later. Fair enough. But I think if the right deal presents itself (and I don't know if this is the right deal), I would be inclined to address the clear need now and worry about another dman later. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Oct 8, 2003 16:16:12 GMT -5
As BC said, the best way to build a team is from the nets out. We have two young studs in net and three young studs on the blueline. Acquiring a big centre can be addressed via free agency since we will have upwards of $6M off the books after this season.
If the trade is for Rivet, then by all means yes. But if it involves Hainsey I would hope that the Habs pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Oct 8, 2003 16:21:37 GMT -5
Ask yourself this; would you deal Komisarek for Svitov? In my mind, it’s the same thing as dealing Hainsey for Svitov… let's be hypothetical for a second and say Souray has a healthy season for a change and the year off was the best thing for him. He's big, likes to hit, just turned 27 so has 5 or more very solid NHL years ahead of himself. We have Markov who is already in front of Brisebois on the depth chart Komisarek who will be eventually and Souray who could be as well. Yes its quite possible that Briser's days are numbered but in a less responsible role on the 2nd pairing with less ice time especially in key situations he will be a very reliable member of our defense corps until he can be moved. So with Markov, Souray, and Komisarek around dealinng Hainsey would not be such abad idea if it brings us depth at center which we truly need. Briser could fill in on the 2nd pp unit for a couple years i would hate it but it could be okay i guess. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Oct 8, 2003 16:55:27 GMT -5
Trouble is, who on the depth chart would be able to quarterback the PP and generate offense if Markov is injured (or, within any given game, just needs to rest after having played 1:15 on the PP)? That's the role foreseen for Hainsey. He shouldn't be casually traded for a forward who isn't even ready to make the team. We're talking about a vulnerable area for the Habs.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 8, 2003 17:04:29 GMT -5
Trouble is, who on the depth chart would be able to quarterback the PP and generate offense if Markov is injured (or, within any given game, just needs to rest after having played 1:15 on the PP)? That's the role foreseen for Hainsey. He shouldn't be casually traded for a forward who isn't even ready to make the team. We're talking about a vulnerable area for the Habs. (Looks left, then right, before speaking) *cough* Brise *cough* bois. |
|
|
|
Post by Viper on Oct 8, 2003 17:35:34 GMT -5
Trouble is, who on the depth chart would be able to quarterback the PP and generate offense if Markov is injured (or, within any given game, just needs to rest after having played 1:15 on the PP)? That's the role foreseen for Hainsey. He shouldn't be casually traded for a forward who isn't even ready to make the team. We're talking about a vulnerable area for the Habs. tell me how svitov who almost made tamp a team rich with quality centers would not be able to play on our team immidiately. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 8, 2003 17:40:00 GMT -5
Ultimately, this thread boils down to personnal preference. Is it more important to have a big Bonk/Holik type center to build around, even if it means your 3d best defenseman is a bit of a journeyman, or is it better to have 3 high quality defensemen and fill the forward needs with a free agent or otherwise cheap player.
Bonk (at 21) and Dykhuis (at 30+), or Kilger(30+) and Redden(at 21) ?
Given what we have at center and defense for the future, I'd tend to go for a center and shop around for a cheaper #3 defenseman than shop around for a discount center. Perreault's and Juneau's are all we're going to get, and they won't do the job if we want to be more than a mediocre, occasionnal 1st round upset-type of team.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 8, 2003 21:14:40 GMT -5
(Looks left, then right, before speaking) *cough* Brise *cough* bois. That reminds me of the tv commercial where the wife is trying to hide the fact she's feeding her husband soy and she constantly coughs or starts up the garburetor whenever she says soy. Soy there. |
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Oct 8, 2003 23:30:51 GMT -5
We can live with the current Koivu / Perreault / Juneau setup for this season. I'm not sure, but have you been watching the same team play as the rest of us? Or have you pulled out the tapes from the 01-02 playoffs? Because this year there's this kid named Ribeiro centering our #2 line (looks darn good doing so might I add). So when you say current, I know you mean once Ribs falls flat on his face again (like all Ribeiro haters firmly believe he will), but it's not gonna happen. And on top of that... Juneau as #3 center I can't really live with, but no worries considering Kilger's returning health. A Koivu/Ribeiro/Kilger set up should be in place permanently within a few months. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Oct 9, 2003 0:07:32 GMT -5
Teams such as the Avalanche, Red Wings, Stars and last year's Devils did not have a big hulking centre on their roster when they won the Cup, but what they did have was a solid trio of defenseman. I love Sheldon Souray, but I don't think that he would be able to play in the top three of any of the aformentioned teams.
Championships are won with defense and goaltending. Most people on this board have Hainsey pegged as our future no. 3 d-man. But he has the potential to possibly be our no. 1. Komisarek has the size advantage, but it seems that Hainsey has better hockey sense, passing and shooting abilities as well as the ability to be a PP quarterback. If he gets his head screwed on right, I don't see how he couldn't challenge for the no. 1 job a few years from now.
At this stage in the Habs development, I don't think that trading away a d-man like that for a two-way centre is that much of a step forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 9, 2003 6:44:54 GMT -5
Teams such as the Avalanche, Red Wings, Stars and last year's Devils did not have a big hulking centre on their roster when they won the Cup, but what they did have was a solid trio of defenseman. I love Sheldon Souray, but I don't think that he would be able to play in the top three of any of the aformentioned teams. Championships are won with defense and goaltending. Most people on this board have Hainsey pegged as our future no. 3 d-man. But he has the potential to possibly be our no. 1. Komisarek has the size advantage, but it seems that Hainsey has better hockey sense, passing and shooting abilities as well as the ability to be a PP quarterback. If he gets his head screwed on right, I don't see how he couldn't challenge for the no. 1 job a few years from now. At this stage in the Habs development, I don't think that trading away a d-man like that for a two-way centre is that much of a step forward. Precise-imisimo. The big assumption being made here by those who are willing to trade Hainsey, is that Komisarek pans out. What if he flops? We’re assuming here, that Komisarek reaches his full potential. While I think he is going to be great, he was far from being anything special this pre-season, and reports out of the French media suggest he might get cut (though I’ll believe it when I see it). That’s a far cry from the Calder Trophy we had anointed him with. While I preach patience (perhaps too much so) there is nothing wrong in hedging your bets either. It has been mentioned here that Karl Dykhuis had all the same physical attributes as Hainsey does, and he didn’t amount to anything special. Ditto for the much lamented David Wilkie. There does exist the possibility that Hainsey DOESN’T reach his potential, in which case acquiring Svitov would have been a major coup. However… What if Komisarek flops? What if he maxes out in the Stephane Quintal range? Physical, okay defensively, but nothing all that special? Suddenly, our defensive depth doesn’t look so good – Markov, and the same old, same old. Now we’re left hoping somebody like Andrew Archer (who had what? 16 points in junior last year?) can step it up, or O’Byrne is a major surprise. Possible, but hardly a sure thing. We’ve upgraded our center position, but our defense has taken a major, major hit. No Hainsey, and Komisarek looks like Craig Rivet or Sheldon Souray. Not elite, by any stretch of the imagination. There is nothing to say that Komisarek will flop, anymore than there is to say Hainsey will flop (though many people seem to think he will for some reason). Neither one clearly outplayed the other in pre-season, which is probably why both are still with the team. Conversely though, neither one of them looked all that elite, or like sure-bets. I’d rather play the odds, keep both of them, hope that at least one of them reaches his full potential, and have a much better chance at that Detroit-Dallas blueline. But if Hainsey goes, then you are pretty much pinning everything, the whole re-build, the whole Cup contending, elite-team status, on Komisarek’s broad shoulders. If he DOESN’T pan out, then you only have Markov, and you look like the Leafs, or the Flyers, with good offenses, very good goaltending, and a defense that will always be your Achilles’ heel. It is possible, of course, that we keep Hainsey and Komisarek, and both flop, but lets not assume the worst. Its too much of a gamble for me. I’d rather keep both, and see which one pans out. If they both do, if they both hit their full potential, then you can always deal one for a king’s ransom later, for much, much more than a prospect like Svitov. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 9, 2003 6:51:13 GMT -5
Life is a series of What-ifs, but I agree that keeping Komi and Hainsey is the best option right now. I never want to hear the name Dave Wilkie again! *shudder*
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 9, 2003 7:26:06 GMT -5
Precise-imisimo. The big assumption being made here by those who are willing to trade Hainsey, is that Komisarek pans out. What if he flops? We’re assuming here, that Komisarek reaches his full potential. While I think he is going to be great, he was far from being anything special this pre-season, and reports out of the French media suggest he might get cut (though I’ll believe it when I see it). That’s a far cry from the Calder Trophy we had anointed him with. While I preach patience (perhaps too much so) there is nothing wrong in hedging your bets either. It has been mentioned here that Karl Dykhuis had all the same physical attributes as Hainsey does, and he didn’t amount to anything special. Ditto for the much lamented David Wilkie. There does exist the possibility that Hainsey DOESN’T reach his potential, in which case acquiring Svitov would have been a major coup. However… What if Komisarek flops? What if he maxes out in the Stephane Quintal range? Physical, okay defensively, but nothing all that special? Suddenly, our defensive depth doesn’t look so good – Markov, and the same old, same old. Now we’re left hoping somebody like Andrew Archer (who had what? 16 points in junior last year?) can step it up, or O’Byrne is a major surprise. Possible, but hardly a sure thing. We’ve upgraded our center position, but our defense has taken a major, major hit. No Hainsey, and Komisarek looks like Craig Rivet or Sheldon Souray. Not elite, by any stretch of the imagination. There is nothing to say that Komisarek will flop, anymore than there is to say Hainsey will flop (though many people seem to think he will for some reason). Neither one clearly outplayed the other in pre-season, which is probably why both are still with the team. Conversely though, neither one of them looked all that elite, or like sure-bets. I’d rather play the odds, keep both of them, hope that at least one of them reaches his full potential, and have a much better chance at that Detroit-Dallas blueline. But if Hainsey goes, then you are pretty much pinning everything, the whole re-build, the whole Cup contending, elite-team status, on Komisarek’s broad shoulders. If he DOESN’T pan out, then you only have Markov, and you look like the Leafs, or the Flyers, with good offenses, very good goaltending, and a defense that will always be your Achilles’ heel. It is possible, of course, that we keep Hainsey and Komisarek, and both flop, but lets not assume the worst. Its too much of a gamble for me. I’d rather keep both, and see which one pans out. If they both do, if they both hit their full potential, then you can always deal one for a king’s ransom later, for much, much more than a prospect like Svitov. BC, that is doomsdays prediction. I can say, what if Koivu keeps on missing games at the same rate he was before last year, what if Ribeiro flops likes half the poeple on this board hope he will and that Plex never really make it out of the AHL... OMG our #1 center will be Higgins, a guy not made to be that, etc, etc..... Really as PTH said, if we can agree that Svitov for Hainsey is fair trade value then it's a question of, at this point and time, would you rather have a special dmen prospect or a special center prospect. If we didn't have Komi and Markov, and Hainsey would be the only blue chip dmen we have, than I might think differently but at this point I firmly believe that our total lack of blue chip prospects forward (Svitov is a top 3 pick in a very deep draft) is a much more pressing issue than the extra padding Hainsey gives us on d. I know some will want to ague that PLekanex and Zhogin and Katsisyn and what have you will sky rocket and become elite players, but you know and I know that in the real world, it won't happen. Chickens aren't beef, even if they are prime chicken. To answer your Komisarek question, I indeed would be reluctant to trade Komi/Svitov one for one. I sincerely believe that Komisarek will devellop into a Stevens/Hatcher kind of defense general but I don't think his way to get there will be a walk in a rose garden paved with Clader trophies and Norris nomination before the age of 25... Like for every youngsters, we'll have to go through his growing pains and learning curve. He is, right now IMO, a cut above Hainsey mainly because of his minding, focus, character and maturity level. Seeing both of them play in the same league on the same team last year was quite revealing I think. But I'll stop here the comparison because I'm starting to sound like a don't like Hainsey. I do and I think he's a great prospect, our best one in fact after Komisarek. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 9, 2003 7:42:09 GMT -5
Teams such as the Avalanche, Red Wings, Stars and last year's Devils did not have a big hulking centre on their roster when they won the Cup, but what they did have was a solid trio of defenseman. I love Sheldon Souray, but I don't think that he would be able to play in the top three of any of the aformentioned teams. These teams had great offensive contributors as well FG. I don't deny that their defense and goaltending was elite (it indeed needs to be) but if you have row boats to go to war it won't work, I think we can agree on that. Sheldon Souray was the best defensemen on the ice, both teams included, in the playoffs 2 years ago. If he can get close to that level of play again, than he's a 2nd pair dmen on any team IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 9, 2003 7:49:34 GMT -5
A few more points about this trade.
1. I am not biased against Russian players but you have to be realistic. They have an option to go back to Russia to play and that gives them extra leverage when it comes to negotiating. Now, if the NHL does manage to decrease salaries, or at least stabilize them, (I highly doubt they will) then the Russian-Euro leagues will be more competitive salary wise. If Svitov and Hainsey do become elite players then this point is moot. However, if they both become second line material then that point is worth MONEY.
2. Given parity between players abilities, I would rather have a goaltender over a defenseman and a defenseman over a forward. Ask yourself this, would you rather have a one of the top 5 goaltender in the league versus a top 5 defenseman? Would you rather have one of the top 5 defenseman in the league versus a top 5 forward?
The analogy for building a team is, the goaltender are the roots, the defenseman are the trunk, the centers are the main branches and the forwards are the side branches.
Bottom line?
Do you plant your trees upside down? Okay, I do, but you got the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 9, 2003 8:13:54 GMT -5
A few more points about this trade. 1. I am not biased against Russian players but you have to be realistic. They have an option to go back to Russia to play and that gives them extra leverage when it comes to negotiating. Now, if the NHL does manage to decrease salaries, or at least stabilize them, (I highly doubt they will) then the Russian-Euro leagues will be more competitive salary wise. If Svitov and Hainsey do become elite players then this point is moot. However, if they both become second line material then that point is worth MONEY. 2. Given parity between players abilities, I would rather have a goaltender over a defenseman and a defenseman over a forward. Ask yourself this, would you rather have a one of the top 5 goaltender in the league versus a top 5 defenseman? Would you rather have one of the top 5 defenseman in the league versus a top 5 forward? The analogy for building a team is, the goaltender are the roots, the defenseman are the trunk, the centers are the main branches and the forwards are the side branches. Bottom line? Do you plant your trees upside down? Okay, I do, but you got the point. Well put. |
|
