HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

OT: Calgary above cap - Trading opportunity?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-07-2008, 01:56 PM
  #26
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Chicago would love to move Lang to help them under; if they can't move Khabibulin or Havlat....

I think he'd be good fit for our 3rd line.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:11 PM
  #27
Lord Horse
Next Day's News
 
Lord Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Full City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,400
vCash: 500
Lang would be a good fit, but given their age and $$$ involved I really, really would prefer Lombardi.

He's a fast skater to boot.

The problem here is "waiting for Mats", since adding a C now would make him a #4 if Mats gets signed in August. If we could somhow trade Lapierre++ for Lombardi I would be extremely pleased.

Lord Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:24 PM
  #28
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pere Noel View Post
That's enough to take them below the cap by roughly 400k.
and who would they replace him in the roster with? a guy making below the league minimum salary of 500 some k?
they need to move more salary then lombardi

sandman08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:31 PM
  #29
Lone Rogue
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman08 View Post
rhett warrener + a pick to some team for a pick in return.
that will save them enough money for next year
To Montreal
Rhett Warrener and a 4th

To Calgary
3rd Round Pick 2010

To Montreal
3rd Round Pick 2010 and Pierre-Cedric Labrie

To Vancouver
Steve Begin, Mathieu Dandenault and Francis Bouillon


Lone Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:34 PM
  #30
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Rogue View Post
To Montreal
Rhett Warrener and a 4th

To Calgary
3rd Round Pick 2010

To Montreal
3rd Round Pick 2010 and Pierre-Cedric Labrie

To Vancouver
Steve Begin, Mathieu Dandenault and Francis Bouillon

actually.. i was thinking more along the lines of (in that situation) we'd get the 3rd from calgary and they'd get the 4th as opposed to how you have it

sandman08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:40 PM
  #31
Lone Rogue
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman08 View Post
actually.. i was thinking more along the lines of (in that situation) we'd get the 3rd from calgary and they'd get the 4th as opposed to how you have it
I just want an excuse to trade Begin/Dandy/Bouilly to Vancouver. I put money that at least one of those players will be a Canuck come September and getting all three means I win a jackpot

I mean, come on, Vancouver needs new players and has all this cash to spend. Why not bring in those three? Begin to fill in Cooke, Dandy to fill in... ummm... Linden and Bouilly to be the only healthy Canuck D-man all year.

Lone Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:42 PM
  #32
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Rogue View Post
I just want an excuse to trade Begin/Dandy/Bouilly to Vancouver. I put money that at least one of those players will be a Canuck come September and getting all three means I win a jackpot

I mean, come on, Vancouver needs new players and has all this cash to spend. Why not bring in those three? Begin to fill in Cooke, Dandy to fill in... ummm... Linden and Bouilly to be the only healthy Canuck D-man all year.
healthy because he's in the press box every game?

sandman08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 02:45 PM
  #33
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,159
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
I wish we could get rid of those scrubs, but in all seriousness moving Rhett Warriner seems to make the most sense for Calgary.

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 03:06 PM
  #34
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman08 View Post
and who would they replace him in the roster with? a guy making below the league minimum salary of 500 some k?
they need to move more salary then lombardi
That's a good question. On the other hand, they already have 22 players signed. That would bring them down to 21 (say we give them a draft pick or prospect that would not play in the NHL this year).

And I don't know what the league requirements are for the minimum and maximum players on the NHL roster for one team.

Pere Noel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 03:10 PM
  #35
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pere Noel View Post
That's a good question. On the other hand, they already have 22 players signed. That would bring them down to 21 (say we give them a draft pick or prospect that would not play in the NHL this year).

And I don't know what the league requirements are for the minimum and maximum players on the NHL roster for one team.
and if they have non long term injuries? they dont have any leeway and have to make decisions on who to call up based on how much they get paid and not actual merit. that and lombardi is as important to them as koivu or plek is to us

sandman08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 03:23 PM
  #36
MrNasty
Registered User
 
MrNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 500
weird. I had a dream last night that the Habs traded Trunev for Conroy...and I was pissed...lol

Another team that has too many forwards is Minnesota. Somebody is on their way out there.

MrNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 03:26 PM
  #37
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman08 View Post
and if they have non long term injuries? they dont have any leeway and have to make decisions on who to call up based on how much they get paid and not actual merit. that and lombardi is as important to them as koivu or plek is to us
Ok. I got the information, so now we can talk.

The minimum active roster is 20 players. The maximum is 23.

So at 21, Calgary are fine.

It's not our fault if they overloaded in fat contracts which at this point forces them to trim their roster. But hey, that's the choice given to a them, they don't all have to have 23 players and that's why there is a leeway in the active number of players.

Teams like Calgary will count on AHL players to replace injured players on their rosters, and if indeed somebody gets hurt, they also have the option of playing less players or they may take advantage of a long term injury alleviate the salary burden and put someone else on the team.

Pere Noel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 03:28 PM
  #38
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pere Noel View Post
Ok. I got the information, so now we can talk.

The minimum active roster is 20 players. The maximum is 23.

So at 21, Calgary are fine.

It's not our fault if they overloaded in fat contracts which at this point forces them to trim their roster. But hey, that's the choice given to a them, they don't all have to have 23 players and that's why there is a leeway in the active number of players.

Teams like Calgary will count on AHL players to replace injured players on their rosters, and if indeed somebody gets hurt, they also have the option of playing less players or they may take advantage of a long term injury alleviate the salary burden and put someone else on the team.
thats great and all and i know all of that but why would they trade lombardi? what benefit would THEY get by doing it?

sandman08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 03:31 PM
  #39
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrNasty View Post
weird. I had a dream last night that the Habs traded Trunev for Conroy...and I was pissed...lol

Another team that has too many forwards is Minnesota. Somebody is on their way out there.
That's what I call a nightmare not a dream.

Minnesota has 12 signed forwards (including young players like Pouliot and Clutterbuck) plus 2 RFAs.

Are you sure that's too many players?

Pere Noel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 03:42 PM
  #40
Habitants
Registered User
 
Habitants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,168
vCash: 500
i like lombardi. dealing him would put them back under the cap

he is young, and has some scoring potential, but he seems to be a good defensive guy and a good faceoff guy. could look good with the habs, although his aquisition would bump down chipchura...

Habitants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2008, 05:05 PM
  #41
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman08 View Post
thats great and all and i know all of that but why would they trade lombardi? what benefit would THEY get by doing it?
Comply with the cap space limitation; that's only why. They are no longer in a position to seek a great benefit.

Now don't ask me why they thought that it made sense to sign Bertuzzi given their cap space situation.

But again, given Mike Keenan's way... it makes sense in his own head to put Bertuzzi on board and let a player like Lombardi go.

Now what may make more sense for Calgary is to trade a player with a higher salary than Lombardi. But guess what, they have signed 7 defensemen and 13 forwards... So unless they decide to go with 6 defensemen (which would bring your "what-if-someone-get hurts" argument)... they have to let a forward or two go.... If you let two forwards go... they again your what-if-someone-get=hurts argument is even more prominent... So we are down to trading a high salary among forwards....

In order of salary (cap impact) on the Calgary roster we have:

Iginla at 7 million
Langkow at 5 million
Cammalleri at 3.35 million
Bertuzzi at 1.95 million
then Lombardi at 1.817 million

What didn't help Calgary is to sign Bertuzzi... that I can not do anything about it... So the best they can do forward wise is to trade Lombardi for no player...

Their other option would be to trade a high salary among their defensemen and get a cheap defenseman in return.

I can't think of a lot of team jumping on such proposition if Aucoin is the say defenseman.

They just signed Phaneuf, Reheger, and Vendermeer to new contracts and unless your a team of questionable morale like Tampa Bay, you don't trade a player after signing him (humm Ottawa did it with Hossa - but Hossa was being a contract pain in the butt I suppose).

You've got Eriksson but at 1.5 million, and getting a player in return... you are in no better situation than trading Lombardi.

We are down to Sarich at 3.6 million and Warrener at 2.35 million.

So there is no answer to your question: What benefit would they get by doing this? Other than comply to the cap space limit.

The real question is: Why did they sign Bertuzzi and put themselves in such a situation?

I think they are left to trade Lombardi for a prospect or draft pick , or exchange Sarich or Warrener for a cheap NHL defenseman... (Or maybe they have a young defenseman in the pipeline and can settle for a draft pick or prospect).

It's no longer a question what can they do that really benefit them, but what do they have to do to comply with the cap space restriction.

My question to you, given that they just signed Bertuzzi, what can they do to get out of this mess?

Pere Noel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 10:15 AM
  #42
wanton007
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Lombardi...

Is not going anywhere. He's going to be given the chance to play 2nd line minutes. Bertuzzi was brought into Calgary to free up more room for other players, and one of those players could be Lombardi.

To get under the cap, one (or all 3) will be moved or sent down:
Warrener
Nilson
Eriksson

Those 3 were put on waivers for a reason

wanton007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 11:08 AM
  #43
Dogbert*
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hamilton, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,052
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dogbert*
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanton007 View Post
Is not going anywhere. He's going to be given the chance to play 2nd line minutes. Bertuzzi was brought into Calgary to free up more room for other players, and one of those players could be Lombardi.

To get under the cap, one (or all 3) will be moved or sent down:
Warrener
Nilson
Eriksson

Those 3 were put on waivers for a reason
Bingo. None of those three players will be on the team next year. If Sutter can't trade them, they'll be sent down to Quad City.

Dogbert* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 03:51 PM
  #44
THE HOFF
Registered User
 
THE HOFF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habitants View Post
i like lombardi. dealing him would put them back under the cap
is there any one they could just put on the block?

like a ''michael ryder'' of some sort? 2m isn't that much...

THE HOFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 04:28 PM
  #45
wanton007
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovalev the Great View Post
is there any one they could just put on the block?

like a ''michael ryder'' of some sort? 2m isn't that much...
There isn't anyone that we would really put on the block that would of interest to anyone....

We've got:
Primeau (I doubt anyone requires his services)
Nilson (already cleared waivers)
Warrener (cleared waivers)
Erikkson (cleared waivers)

The youngs like Boyd, Prust, Nystrom are going to get chances to play this year.

Glencross and Bourque are new to the team and I doubt we'd let them go before seeing how they fit in with the team.

Lombardi will not be let go. Removing his salary to fit under the cap just doesn't make sense to us. We move Nilson, Warrener and Erikkson and that frees up 4 or so million dollars which will place us under the cap again. Unless of course, we were over even with those guys in A (I haven't checked for sure yet), but I'm pretty sure we're over because those guys are still in the bigs....

We have fairly good defensemen prospects so an injury to the top 6 will result in a cheap AHLer getting a shot at it.

wanton007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 04:33 PM
  #46
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,159
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
Looks like Calgary will make a trade moving bad contracts for bad contracts to fit under the cap, latest is the Mccabe to Calgary rumors.

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 04:38 PM
  #47
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Anaheim is over the cap too, along with Calgary, Chicago and Philly. The Rangers are REALLY close.

Players from each roster that seem logical to move:

ANAHEIM: Schneider, Marchant, R. Niedermayer, Bobby Ryan
PHILLY: Hartnell, Knuble, Hatcher.
CALGARY: Nilson, Aucoin, Warrener, Lombardi, Eriksson, Primeau
CHICAGO: Havlat, Lang, Seabrook, Khabibulin, Sopel
RANGERS: Paul Mara

Of those, the only ones that I think would be anything more than a salary dump in a trade (IE: package them with picks for worse picks) are: Schneider, Ryan, Hartnell, Lombardi, Seabrook. The rest are either buyout candidates or just too highly paid for too long to move, such as Havlat and Hartnell.

The Canadiens meanwhile CANNOT take on a long term salary, I don't think. We have room for a short term rental, such as Sundin, but anyone whose contract carries into next year is a bad plan. We are likely to have to give major raises to the following: Komisarek (could cost 5+ to sign), Plekanec (should clock in at 3-4), Higgins (see Plexs), Kovalev (1 million raise may not be insane), Koivu (likely similar to current deal), Tanguay (if we want him back he'll have to play well enough to earn a pay raise).

The upside is we will likely deleted Bouillon, Dandenault, Kostopolous, Begin... but all their moneys combined, subtracting replacements, likely won't even equal the raise Komisarek gets.


Last edited by Lucius: 07-08-2008 at 04:45 PM.
Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 04:44 PM
  #48
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,159
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
You take Philly off that list, like it was stated somewhere above before, they will get injury relief in Gagne & Rathje.

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 04:50 PM
  #49
Lucius
Registered User
 
Lucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atwater Ghost View Post
You take Philly off that list, like it was stated somewhere above before, they will get injury relief in Gagne & Rathje.
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=PHI

They're 1 million+ over without Rathje.

If Gagne doesn't get exempted, and that's not a given is it?, then they're still over.

Lucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-08-2008, 07:09 PM
  #50
crazyd
Canada is hockey
 
crazyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
The Canadiens meanwhile CANNOT take on a long term salary, I don't think. We have room for a short term rental, such as Sundin, but anyone whose contract carries into next year is a bad plan. We are likely to have to give major raises to the following: Komisarek (could cost 5+ to sign), Plekanec (should clock in at 3-4), Higgins (see Plexs), Kovalev (1 million raise may not be insane), Koivu (likely similar to current deal), Tanguay (if we want him back he'll have to play well enough to earn a pay raise).
So Smolinski at 1.2M wouldn't be that bad then...

And I'm unsure to desire Lang at 4M...even if he has good size, good faceoffs and good two way.

As for Lombardi, he is more interesting considering he is fairly cheap for the next few years: 1.55M, 1.55M and 2.35M.

Upside is that Lombardi can blossom in comparison to Lang who is on the decline.


Last edited by crazyd: 07-08-2008 at 07:18 PM.
crazyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.