|
|
Post by MTLMan on Nov 1, 2003 22:01:10 GMT -5
Our obvious lack of offence must be addressed. And I realize that Jagr comes with a lot of baggage and huge price tag but he has a huge up side. Once he see's all the beautiful Montreal women he will forget all about his ex-girlfriend.
Washington is looking to dump his salary but no one will bite. If we offer Audette, Rivet and a 2nd tir prospect maybe they would take it. They would drop Jagr's 10 million a year (though I would want them to eat at least 2 million per year on that contract). They would then be picking up Audette and Rivet's combined 6 million. But that would be for a shorter time due to the duration of the remainder on their contracts compared to the duration of Jagr's.
I know Jagr's a head case but in the right situation he is the best player in the league and sometimes you do have to break some rules for your superstars... did you hear that Mario Tremblay. And I can't see anything wrong with a Jagr - Koivu - Zednik line. I would even like Riberio on the wing instead of Zednik.
I know this may sound desparate but I don't think it's absoultely absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2003 22:05:49 GMT -5
It's a good thought, and even I thought of it, but in the long run, he's not worth the headache. Say he comes through this year; the change is really good, and he has a 90 point year for us.
Then slowly, his points drop, and he floats like he's been doing now and guess who's stuck with that contract.
It's an interesting thing to think about, and actually, I think he would do really well on a line with Koivu.
It's 50/50. Triumph or bust. Well, more like 60/40.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 1, 2003 22:17:10 GMT -5
Overpaid, floating cancers are not what this team needs right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 1, 2003 22:18:32 GMT -5
 No no no no no no no no noooooooooooooooooooooooo. One more floater? Dissention in the dressing room? Another selfish player? And we give up a prospect or a pick? And pick up salary? I don't think so. Short term up side--maybe. Long term headache--definitely. And another coach bites the dust.
|
|
|
|
Post by MTLMan on Nov 1, 2003 22:23:08 GMT -5
Well something has to be done. We haven't scored a REAL goal since Souray scored. And we wouldn't be adding another floater because we would be sending Audette the other way. And by the end of this year we wouldn't have Perrault, Juneau or Dackell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2003 22:26:07 GMT -5
There's no way we'd be getting Jagr by handing them Audette and Perreault in return. If they make this move, it's to dump salary.
If we pick up Jagr, we'd have to pay for him with our prospects and draft picks. There's no way they'd take our underacheivers for theirs.
|
|
Blair320
Rookie
Come on Bob, I need a job!
Posts: 1
|
Post by Blair320 on Nov 1, 2003 22:26:51 GMT -5
no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghost-Of-Nyrop on Nov 1, 2003 22:43:22 GMT -5
Doesn't this team already have more over-paid, under-achievers than it knows what to do with? I'll bet you that if the Capitals put Jagr on waivers right now, they'd have no takers. No one, not even the Red Wings, not even the Rangers, would touch Jagr for that kind of money the way he's playing these days. You think Audette goes through the motions? Then you haven't watched a Capitals game recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by MTLMan on Nov 1, 2003 22:47:35 GMT -5
There's no way we'd be getting Jagr by handing them Audette and Perreault in return. If they make this move, it's to dump salary. If we pick up Jagr, we'd have to pay for him with our prospects and draft picks. There's no way they'd take our underacheivers for theirs. The only underacheiver we would be sending them would be Audette, who is in the last year of his contract. Perrault was never part of my original suggestion, but Rivet was. |
|
|
|
Post by JFM on Nov 1, 2003 22:53:41 GMT -5
[quote author=MattDHF link=board=general&thread=1067742070&start=5#0
date=1067743567]There's no way we'd be getting Jagr by handing them Audette and Perreault in return. If they make this move, it's to dump salary.
If we pick up Jagr, we'd have to pay for him with our prospects and draft picks. There's no way they'd take our underacheivers for theirs.[/quote]
I have to agree 100% with Matt here. The Habs would be lucky to get Jagr's used unwashed jock in return for your offer. If you seriously want the Caps to listen to any Hab offers, you're going to have to start the offers with Komisarek and/or Higgins. That being said, I don't want the current version of Jagr anywhere near this team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Nov 1, 2003 22:56:31 GMT -5
I totaly disagree. I think we could get Jagr for a song if we paid all of his salary.
That being said I'd not want Jagr even if we could pick him up on waivers. If there's a cap, we're screwed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2003 23:02:36 GMT -5
Perrault was never part of my original suggestion, but Rivet was. Regardless, an underacheivers for underacheiver trade would make no sense. A salary dump would probably include the following deal: Jaromir Jagr for Craig Rivet/Yanic Perreault/Donald Audette, Christopher Higgins/Mike Komisarek, 1st Round Pick. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Nov 1, 2003 23:07:35 GMT -5
PLEASE GAWD NO!
Jagr's salary would cripple this franchise for the rest of the decade. He is nothing close to the player he once was. There's no way in hell we should give up kids like Higgs and Komo for Jagr(and he isn't even worth one of them right now..it's like the Manny Ramirez situation with the Bosox, no one will pick up that contract because it's so huge for a player starting to decline).
|
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Nov 1, 2003 23:10:38 GMT -5
PLEASE GAWD NO! Jagr's salary would cripple this franchise for the rest of the decade. He is nothing close to the player he once was. There's no way in hell we should give up kids like Higgs and Komo for Jagr. Indeed There's no way in hell the caps would be asking for such a package for Jagr. They want nothing more than to get rid of him. NO ONE is gonna cough up such a package for Jagr. Just close your eyes. Imagine Jagr at 37 years old earning 11M per year in a post CBA era with a hard 40 M cap ... awful |
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Nov 1, 2003 23:13:14 GMT -5
Not only would his salary kill us so would his attitude,obviously we are desperate for a goal scorer but I wouldn't even consider this.From any stand pont in makes no sense.
HFTO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2003 23:16:29 GMT -5
Imagining Higs lighting it up and Komo stopping the forwards for the Caps instead of us while we complain that Jagr is intentionally underachieving for us pains the mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Nov 1, 2003 23:20:23 GMT -5
Imagining Higs lighting it up and Komo stopping the forwards for the Caps instead of us while we complain that Jagr is intentionally underachieving for us pains the mind. Look what the pens got for Jagr. Back in those years Jagr wasn't signed to a 55M contract and he was producing like crazy. I'm just wondering who will be stupid enough to unload Jagr off the caps hands. Even Sather wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole. Jagr is in Washington to stay. Unless he gets reasonable and sign a new contract. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 1, 2003 23:32:59 GMT -5
Well something has to be done. You're right. But this is the wrong something. The only underacheiver we would be sending them would be Audette, who is in the last year of his contract. Two years, 6 million. If we pick up Jagr, we'd have to pay for him with our prospects and draft picks. And the cash we don't have. I think we could get Jagr for a song if we paid all of his salary. Less than a song--a note or two. There are 11 million reasons to forget this idea. No, 11 million and one: he would destroy anything positive (and there's precious little of that) that's going on in Montreal. Let Toronto have him. Imagine Jagr at 37 years old earning 11M per year in a post CBA era with a hard 40 M cap ... awful A 31 Million cap has been suggested! |
|
|
|
Post by JFM on Nov 1, 2003 23:34:14 GMT -5
I agree with you, Habsolution in the respect of the condition of the Habs taking Jagr's full contract that the price will appear cheap. But in reality I don't see the Habs (or any other team for that matter) willingly taking on that albatross of a contract. So to get the Caps to pay a portion of the contract will raise the asking price for Jagr. I don't want Jagr here.... at any price.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Nov 1, 2003 23:48:21 GMT -5
A 31 Million cap has been suggested! Yeah I know that's what Bettman wants but I just thought it was totaly unrealistic. The players will never agree to that. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 2, 2003 0:08:18 GMT -5
PLEASE GAWD NO! Jagr's salary would cripple this franchise for the rest of the decade. He is nothing close to the player he once was. There's no way in hell we should give up kids like Higgs and Komo for Jagr(and he isn't even worth one of them right now..it's like the Manny Ramirez situation with the Bosox, no one will pick up that contract because it's so huge for a player starting to decline). Well, I'd give up Higgins or Komisarek for Jagr, even at his current salary, if we could have a way out of that contract if things don't work out. But in the current situation, I agree Jagr isn't what we need. Going for the "big solution" to a problem usually doesn't work - you wind up just skewing your organisation in a different way. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Nov 2, 2003 1:02:14 GMT -5
Well, I'd give up Higgins or Komisarek for Jagr, even at his current salary, if we could have a way out of that contract if things don't work out. But in the current situation, I agree Jagr isn't what we need. There's a perfect analogy. The Boston Red Sox put Manny Ramirez, one of the very best hitters in baseball, on waivers and no one claimed him for free because of his poor defense, lousy attitude, and outrageous salary. And you would even consider giving up Higgins or Komisarek for someone much older who predictably doesn't give it his all and who has a long-term contract for $11M per year? I don't think you'll find much agreement on this board. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 2, 2003 4:22:46 GMT -5
There's a perfect analogy. The Boston Red Sox put Manny Ramirez, one of the very best hitters in baseball, on waivers and no one claimed him for free because of his poor defense, lousy attitude, and outrageous salary. And you would even consider giving up Higgins or Komisarek for someone much older who predictably doesn't give it his all and who has a long-term contract for $11M per year? I don't think you'll find much agreement on this board. I don't give a hoot about baseball. And re-read the text you yourself quoted - I'd want a way out of that multi-million dollar contract, just in case. But for one of the best players in the world, I'd be willing to risk a solid kid. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Nov 3, 2003 13:18:30 GMT -5
I don't give a hoot about baseball. And re-read the text you yourself quoted - I'd want a way out of that multi-million dollar contract, just in case. But for one of the best players in the world, I'd be willing to risk a solid kid. Agreed, the guy is worth 10 Donald Audettes (because Donald can't shoot anymore, poor guy). |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Nov 3, 2003 14:02:34 GMT -5
I don't give a hoot about baseball. And re-read the text you yourself quoted - I'd want a way out of that multi-million dollar contract, just in case. But for one of the best players in the world, I'd be willing to risk a solid kid. You'd want a way out of that contract? Are you kidding? There IS no way out of the contract. Washington wouldn't take him back and wouldn't subsidize the Habs. Jagr wouldn't agree to either a cut in his slaary or a shortening of the duration of his contract. Therefore, the Habs wouldn't dream of giving up a "solid kid" for him. No team would. Despite your noninterest in baseball, the same principle applies to Jagr as to Ramirez. If the Caps put him on waivers tomorrow no one would claim him for "free" because he makes too much and for too long for even the Rangers or Red Wings to afford right now, much less after a new CBA goes into effect. |
|
|
|
Post by MTLMan on Nov 4, 2003 21:07:34 GMT -5
On another board someone heard on Sportsnet that Montreal may be trying to work out a trade for Jagr. They claim Koivu and Brisebois for Jagr.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Nov 4, 2003 21:21:26 GMT -5
I'd rather see Koivu setting up Jagr... Koivu better be back soon cause Zednik is really starting to PISS ME OFF!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Nov 4, 2003 21:29:29 GMT -5
But for one of the best players in the world, I'd be willing to risk a solid kid. Yeah, so would I but not for Jagr. And giving up Komisarek and Higgins for this loafer would be tragic. If they gave me Jagr, I wouldn't take him even if I could get out of his contract next year. Why would a team pay some slug $11 million unless, like Washington, they absolutely had to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2003 21:40:58 GMT -5
On another board someone heard on Sportsnet that Montreal may be trying to work out a trade for Jagr. They claim Koivu and Brisebois for Jagr. The thing is, we need Koivu with Jagr. Nobody else will set him up for goals, and there's hardly anybody else here who could finish the plays that Jagr could set up. Not to mention he probably wouldn't even do it half the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Nov 4, 2003 22:36:04 GMT -5
The only way I see this happening is if Washington is picking up a ridiculous amount of his contract and we don't have to give up anything of significance.
If thats not the case, just say no to puffnuts....
|
|
No no no no no no no no noooooooooooooooooooooooo.
