View Single Post
03-30-2012, 11:41 PM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,747
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CrimsonSkorpion View Post
May not be the case for every single one of them, but one of the players that falls under this theory is Latendresse. Amazing to me how hard this city and the media pushed for this kid to not only play for the Habs, but be a part of the top 6 rotation and the guy that would "put Koivu back on pace."
I don't know CS...

of the young players we gave up on recently, most of them had immediate (or at least, within 6-12months) NHL success with their new teams:

Palushaj, Weber (oops.. they haven't been dismissed just yet )

all of those players were put into positions to succeed almost as soon as they joined their new teams, and all of them responded by delivering very good, if not great, value to their new teams (from a cap hit-to-contribution pov).

meanwhile, our management team seemed to prefer crowding out those young players in favour of expensive veterans whose cap hit-to-contribution level was piss-poor.

of all the criticisms of the Gainey/Gauthier era, that may be the most fitting... they never seemed to understand the new paradigm that the cap era created. It's no longer a matter of just assembling the superior talent, it's about building a roster and managing it in a way that ensures that each level of "pay grade" is giving you quality value. That's something that a good manager CAN control, and the more effective you are at doing so, the more you protect yourself/your team against injuries & other unpredictable events (like your 7.4M$ player regressing to the point of being a sub-15min/night player).

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote