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

Cammy

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2011, 06:31 PM
  #51
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,700
vCash: 500
Leave Cammy alone!!!

He will snap in a huge goal when we need it.

Watch.


Born in 1909 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 06:34 PM
  #52
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Gill will be the real Hal Gill come April, that I at least know without much doubt.
Exactly.

What do you want from him?

To block shots Kamakazi style all year long?

Born in 1909 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 06:49 PM
  #53
Skarjak
Registered User
 
Skarjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Who cares that Cammy doesn't have the best production in the season? As far as I know, the goal is still to win the Stanley cup, and it turns out he's one of the best players to have on your team in the playoffs. We should not deal him.

Skarjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 06:53 PM
  #54
number 11
Registered User
 
number 11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarjak View Post
Who cares that Cammy doesn't have the best production in the season? As far as I know, the goal is still to win the Stanley cup, and it turns out he's one of the best players to have on your team in the playoffs. We should not deal him.
what about having a power forward like stewart for the playoffs? don't you think that would help us against bigger teams?

number 11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 07:15 PM
  #55
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by holyhabs87 View Post
I'd MUCH rather trade Gionta.
Of course you would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
Out of our major UFA, Cammy is the last one I would trade. I would certainly think about letting Gomez and Gionta go before him.
No kidding.

You won't get the same return though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyFischer View Post
Habs probably do this trade, but...

Cammy is the best playoff scorer on the habs. (and a tremendous presence in the locker room)

If they want to win now, it would be a step backwards to make this trade right now.
No doubt he's our best playoff scorer. And yes, if they want to win it now it's a step backwards. The only reason to deal him is to get something for the future. Sometimes you've got to take one step back to go two steps forward.

Question is, do you think we can "win it now?" If you do, then fine... hang on to him. But if not, then deal him so that we can actually win something down the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Not that I totally disagree but asking to trade a player for a player that they have no chance of getting in return isn't thinking out of the box. It's like me saying let's trade Gionta for Kulemin. Hey both score 30g but we have too many small guys. Would never work, Leafs would never do that trade.
Well, that's a whole other story. As I said above, I don't know enough about Stewart and can't comment on this deal specifically because of this.

I find it hilarious though that some folks are saying that there's NO WAY we should do this vs. others who say there's NO WAY St. Louis does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac1160 View Post
And the tank master is back. You have ZERO confidence in this team..How come your here when all you do is say "trade our vets we are not good enough" trade trade trade.
You're right insofar as I don't have confidence that we can win a cup with the squad we have now. I think we're a playoff team and that's about it.

I'd like us to actually be good enough to win a cup someday. We have cup quality goaltending right now and that's about it. It would be nice to build a team that would be capable of supporting Price enough that we could actually contend for something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
He's a genius actually. He realizes trading a star player is thinking outside the box........
Yeah, I guess I should be like you. Koivu was going to lead us to a cup right? It wouldn't have made sense for us to deal him for a prospect like Bobby Ryan right? And Markov? Whew... good thing we hung onto him instead of dealing him like I suggested a couple years back.

Lord knows that you've been dead on with his being completely healthy for the past 2 years. Too bad he's still on the shelf. I mean, what a shock that was.

Good news though, Jason Blake should be ready to become a UFA any day now so I guess we can go get him because he's the last piece for us to win a cup.

I your definition of "thinking outside the box" is dealing away one of our best prospects for an underperforming center like Gomez. Well congratulations, the team has followed your route. I'm just amazed we haven't won a cup yet.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2011, 11:53 PM
  #56
Skarjak
Registered User
 
Skarjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by number 11 View Post
what about having a power forward like stewart for the playoffs? don't you think that would help us against bigger teams?
Would Stewart be more than a point per game player for us in the playoffs? I mean, at the end of the day, the goal of the game is to score more goals. There are very few players in the NHL with better production than Cammy in the last two years of playoffs, so I don't see how we could obtain anyone in a trade that would be more useful in the playoffs than him.

We also have a big enough team right now. Pacioretty and Cole are power forwards, while AK, Eller and Moen are all physically imposing players. And White players a physical game. We're a little light on the back end, but Stewart isn't going to fix that.

I think that the goal for this franchise is always to win the Stanley cup, Lafleurs Guy. We currently have a team which is no worse than last year's Stanley cup winner. We also have some good players in their prime and young players on their first few contracts. This is the time to win a cup. It would be ridiculous to rebuild now, after Gainey's rebuild. You've gotta stop rebuilding at some point and try to win. You want to get rid of our good players and watch this team suck for five more years, with no assurance that we'll be better at the end? I don't.

Skarjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 12:12 AM
  #57
FiveForDrawingBlood
Registered User
 
FiveForDrawingBlood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarjak View Post
Would Stewart be more than a point per game player for us in the playoffs? I mean, at the end of the day, the goal of the game is to score more goals. There are very few players in the NHL with better production than Cammy in the last two years of playoffs, so I don't see how we could obtain anyone in a trade that would be more useful in the playoffs than him.

We also have a big enough team right now. Pacioretty and Cole are power forwards, while AK, Eller and Moen are all physically imposing players. And White players a physical game. We're a little light on the back end, but Stewart isn't going to fix that.

I think that the goal for this franchise is always to win the Stanley cup, Lafleurs Guy. We currently have a team which is no worse than last year's Stanley cup winner. We also have some good players in their prime and young players on their first few contracts. This is the time to win a cup. It would be ridiculous to rebuild now, after Gainey's rebuild. You've gotta stop rebuilding at some point and try to win. You want to get rid of our good players and watch this team suck for five more years, with no assurance that we'll be better at the end? I don't.
Good Post!

FiveForDrawingBlood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 07:17 AM
  #58
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I your definition of "thinking outside the box" is dealing away one of our best prospects for an underperforming center like Gomez. Well congratulations, the team has followed your route. I'm just amazed we haven't won a cup yet.
Thinking outside the box is taking a flyer on a player like Diaz, or letting go of a high value RFA to get 'over'compensation (Kessel), or trading the goalie who took you to the conference final (Halak).


Trading a star player, or trading a prospect for one, are actions born out of different necessities and are a common occurences and it's just laughable that someone would consider that thinking outside the box.

Thank you for, again and as always, putting words into my mouth in lieu of anything of actual substance.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 07:49 AM
  #59
bhuya71
Registered User
 
bhuya71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Bangladesh
Posts: 2,432
vCash: 500
Just to have fun if crosby came back healthy! Would not cammy, kristo, 1st for malkin + cap dump I know I am crazy lol

bhuya71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 08:11 AM
  #60
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
I looked everywhere on NHL.com but I can't find the damn potential stat. Why is that? How are we supposed to trade our "over the hill vets" for young, future-stars if we can't tell which one will become good???

That's ********!

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 08:47 AM
  #61
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Thinking outside the box is taking a flyer on a player like Diaz, or letting go of a high value RFA to get 'over'compensation (Kessel), or trading the goalie who took you to the conference final (Halak).


Trading a star player, or trading a prospect for one, are actions born out of different necessities and are a common occurences and it's just laughable that someone would consider that thinking outside the box.

Thank you for, again and as always, putting words into my mouth in lieu of anything of actual substance.
Dude, those moves that you argued against would've made us a better team by now. For some reason though, you continue to cling to the idea that our mediocre free agents will lead us somewhere.

That is the conventional way of doing things. This is the method that the Leafs used for years and it got them nowhere. It would be one thing if we managed to get star players via free agency but that hasn't been the case.

We would've been better off years ago if we'd traded away our core. And we'd probably be better off in the future if we did the same thing now. But, instead of doing this we stubbornly cling to the lottery slogan of "anyone can play, anyone can win" once we reach the playoffs.

Maybe it will happen. Maybe Price can lead us to glory. He's certainly good enough to lead a team to a cup. But we should work towards getting a team that has a better chance of doing something and can be an annual contender. And if dealing away Cammy nets us a great prospect that we can build around we should definitely do it.

You talked about how we shouldn't do this years ago. You were wrong then and I suspect you're probably wrong now. And unfortunately, I don't see any indications that we're going to do anything differently in the future so all we can do is hope that Price (our only top 5 in 25 years) can lead us somewhere because Lord knows that without him we have no chance at all.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:40 AM
  #62
Skarjak
Registered User
 
Skarjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
I don't see why it's bad that this team relies a lot on good goaltending. Price is our franchise player and will most likely soon become one of your players with the most lucrative contract. It's normal that we would lean on him, the same way the capitals lean on Ovechkin. But this team can win games even when Price is not godlike. Some poor coaching decisions led to our early losing streak, but it seems the team is playing a different game now, one that is more adapted to its strengths.

Bear in mind that the Bruins would have had no chance in hell of winning if Thomas hadn't been playing like he did (I guess I made a pun...).

And frankly, I'd say there's a lot of teams nowadays that win it (or come close) that no one would have expected. You could say that of the Hurricanes and Bruins, and also probably the Penguins, who most people expected to be beaten by the wings for the second time in a row. Also remember Philly's Stanley cup finals appearance, and the Oilers'. The league has a lot more parity now. With a deep line up, a playoff point per game player, a solid PP quarterback and an all-star goalie, the Habs have all the ingredients to win it all.

Skarjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:53 AM
  #63
gillyguzzler
Registered User
 
gillyguzzler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,748
vCash: 500
Is this an actual rumour or just wishful thinking or out loud musings by an HF poster?

gillyguzzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 10:10 AM
  #64
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarjak View Post
I don't see why it's bad that this team relies a lot on good goaltending. Price is our franchise player and will most likely soon become one of your players with the most lucrative contract. It's normal that we would lean on him, the same way the capitals lean on Ovechkin. But this team can win games even when Price is not godlike. Some poor coaching decisions led to our early losing streak, but it seems the team is playing a different game now, one that is more adapted to its strengths.

Bear in mind that the Bruins would have had no chance in hell of winning if Thomas hadn't been playing like he did (I guess I made a pun...).

And frankly, I'd say there's a lot of teams nowadays that win it (or come close) that no one would have expected. You could say that of the Hurricanes and Bruins, and also probably the Penguins, who most people expected to be beaten by the wings for the second time in a row. Also remember Philly's Stanley cup finals appearance, and the Oilers'. The league has a lot more parity now. With a deep line up, a playoff point per game player, a solid PP quarterback and an all-star goalie, the Habs have all the ingredients to win it all.
We've had great goalies for a long time now. Despite this we've still been a bubble team. It's not impossible for us to win... but that can be said of the Leafs too man. Do you think they're going to win? Neither do I.

We are a bubble playoff team. That's what we've been for a long time and we could even finish outside the playoffs this year. We are like the Rangers only our top players aren't as good. Do you think they'll win anything this year? What makes you think we'll fare any better?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 11:05 AM
  #65
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
You think that we're a bubble time, fine, hard to disagree with that, but which teams are clearly a step above us ?
I cant find that many (considering how negatively is seen the expression). 2 in the East, maybe 3 in the West. You dont need that many lucky bounces if you do a good job as a GM for several (2-3 only) years.

Then, if i agree with the fact that they're all, (minus Detroit), the result of a rebuild, we also have to consider the fact that they're...all the result of a rebuild. They all did draft 1st or 2nd overall. Not lower. And most of them did that for more than one year.

With Price in your lineup plus the young players we already have in the lineup, there is no way you finish that low.
I cant think that we would be better if we just trade away our core right now that young players are part of this core.

In the past, im not even sure that we were actually able to do so in the last 6-7 years.


If you want your rebuild to be successful, even with a good scouting staff like ours, you still need to be simply a putrid team on the ice. For at least 2 years. Business-wise, its a huge risk. And it very possibly implies that you did fail in your job in the last years. Not really the best way to sell it.

I'll also say that a rebuild is much more difficult to do than we think, since the lockout. Washington and Pittsburgh started theirs before the lockout. Chicago did not rebuild per se, but it was also before the lockout that most of their current players were drafted.

With the cap floor, thats an important thing, i think that we need to remember this.

In the last years, 1st round picks are not traded that often, and we often saw very good players on very bad teams staying with their team for a lot of reasons, including the fact that everyone is reluctant to give away some assets because of their own future.

(And the latest players traded for interesting picks (Kessel, Jokinen, Penner, Stewart...) were (very) risky moves, and were disappointing for the most part, so thats surely not going to help you.)

Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 12:32 PM
  #66
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
You think that we're a bubble time, fine, hard to disagree with that, but which teams are clearly a step above us ?
I cant find that many (considering how negatively is seen the expression). 2 in the East, maybe 3 in the West. You dont need that many lucky bounces if you do a good job as a GM for several (2-3 only) years.

Then, if i agree with the fact that they're all, (minus Detroit), the result of a rebuild, we also have to consider the fact that they're...all the result of a rebuild. They all did draft 1st or 2nd overall. Not lower. And most of them did that for more than one year.

With Price in your lineup plus the young players we already have in the lineup, there is no way you finish that low.
I cant think that we would be better if we just trade away our core right now that young players are part of this core.
Bottom line though is that by taking the 'we're a middle of the pack' team approach and trying to win is that you're basically hoping that you can luck your way into the cup. It's certainly possible but I'd just prefer that we proactively try to make our team a contending club. It's not like this is impossible to do man.

Let's assume that we have our superstar in Price. Let's even hope that best case scenario MaxPac and Subban are the real deal too. That's something to build around right? But these guys aren't there yet and we have vets who aren't really going to lead us anywhere. So, why not deal the vets and give more icetime to the kids? And get more prospects to develop along with them?

I don't think we should tank either man. And the fact is with Price in net it wouldn't work if we tried. That doesn't mean that we can't at least try to trade for prospects or other clubs picks.

And flip it around for a second... what if Subban doesn't turn into a superstar? What if, the guy just never really develops his defensive side of the game and becomes a PP specialist and that's it? And if MaxPac turns into a Brian Savage?

What are we left with then? Price and that's about it.

We need MORE good young players and we just don't have enough right now. Eller is probably a 2nd liner at best and we've got some young kids on the blueline that can provide us depth for the future but we need top end talent. We've lacked this ingredient forever and it's hurt us. Maybe we have a top end goalie now. That's a start but we shouldn't just get mediocre players to surround him with and then hope for the best. I don't see how that's practical dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
In the past, im not even sure that we were actually able to do so in the last 6-7 years.

If you want your rebuild to be successful, even with a good scouting staff like ours, you still need to be simply a putrid team on the ice. For at least 2 years. Business-wise, its a huge risk. And it very possibly implies that you did fail in your job in the last years. Not really the best way to sell it.

I'll also say that a rebuild is much more difficult to do than we think, since the lockout. Washington and Pittsburgh started theirs before the lockout. Chicago did not rebuild per se, but it was also before the lockout that most of their current players were drafted.

With the cap floor, thats an important thing, i think that we need to remember this.

In the last years, 1st round picks are not traded that often, and we often saw very good players on very bad teams staying with their team for a lot of reasons, including the fact that everyone is reluctant to give away some assets because of their own future.

(And the latest players traded for interesting picks (Kessel, Jokinen, Penner, Stewart...) were (very) risky moves, and were disappointing for the most part, so thats surely not going to help you.)
When you draft high for multiple years, you hope you find a superstar. We've drafted high once and landed Price. So we're already part way there.

As for rebuilding, I don't think you need to be putrid on the ice. We've made a couple of rebuild moves already with dealing for Gorges and a pick that turned into MaxPac. Eller was also dealt for. 1st overalls may not be traded for often but 1st rounders are dealt all the time. Even if we don't land a superstar this way at least we can surround our goalie with good young players that have a shot at doing something.

There's no reason we can't continue to make those kinds of moves and continue to hang onto our draft picks in the process.

The alternative is to either keep doing things the way we always have or maybe trade away picks to try to land some kind of difference maker. Personally, I'd shy away from those options because I don't think we're just one player away and I think dealing away picks would hurt us in the long run.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 12:48 PM
  #67
DumFries
Registered User
 
DumFries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Shawinigan
Country: Canada
Posts: 484
vCash: 500
It's a good thing some people here are not GMs. Cammy is the best sniper this team had in years. He came here willingly to sign with this team with 10 impending UFAs that did not return and arguably was probably the best UFA this team attracted since years. Cammy is also a proven playoff performer. I wouldn't trade him unless this team is sitting in the bottom of the standings come trade deadline for a valuable return.

DumFries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 04:43 PM
  #68
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dude, those moves that you argued against would've made us a better team by now. For some reason though, you continue to cling to the idea that our mediocre free agents will lead us somewhere.
I never argued AGAINST those moves. Unlike you, I am a realist and a pragmatist, and understand that an organization as the Habs, who have had financial trouble in the past, needs its revenue stream more than anything else, and that means they can't trade away the core and miss the playoffs. Again, you put words into my mouth, and false intent. You decided what my intent was. You're not even able to understand the basic necessities of the organization (financial stability) and like a teen who only sees his own grand opinion as the solution, you disregard anything that doesn't fit your perception. I'm all for trading players to get top-end prospects. The difference is, I understand WHY they can't do it. You can't even make the difference between those two things, and rather stick a false intent on me.

Quote:
That is the conventional way of doing things. This is the method that the Leafs used for years and it got them nowhere. It would be one thing if we managed to get star players via free agency but that hasn't been the case.
Yes it has. Cammalleri is a star player, but you'll deny this so you can keep spouting your demagogy. Conventional way is anything that you see regularly. It's as if you're saying signing UFAs is common, but trading prospects and star players is not. That's entirely false. They are all common, they are all conventional. When you say "thinking out of the box", what you don't realize is that it's actually "let's not consider basic neccesities (yearly financial stability). Didn't the Habs trade Halak for Eller? They did because in that case they had the luxury of not having to meet the basic necessities. Trading one of the two wasn't as high a risk vs getting playoff money, then trading guys like Koivu or Kovalev at the other time you mentioned, who were essential for present playoff contention.

Quote:
We would've been better off years ago if we'd traded away our core.
See, that's unrealistic. It's all fine and dandy in theory, and is a concept that anyone who has played GM in hockey video games can grasp. That's most people here, so stop thinking you're a genius and you have the ultimate solution. Everybody knows that strategy. Only the astute understand that it can't work here, in the mandates that Habs management have, which is yearly playoff viability to ensure financial stability. They can do it, but only when depth at the given position is ensured for yearly playoff viability (like with Halak, like with what will happen with Gomer as we now have bigger depth at center).

Quote:
And we'd probably be better off in the future if we did the same thing now. But, instead of doing this we stubbornly cling to the lottery slogan of "anyone can play, anyone can win" once we reach the playoffs.
Like a child you refure to see reality and instead impose unrealistic intentions on the organization. It's not stubborness, it's realistic management, based on their own immediate necessities.

Quote:
Maybe it will happen. Maybe Price can lead us to glory. He's certainly good enough to lead a team to a cup. But we should work towards getting a team that has a better chance of doing something and can be an annual contender. And if dealing away Cammy nets us a great prospect that we can build around we should definitely do it.
You're whole point here is only based on your weak vision of what it takes to win. You need playoff performers to win, and Cammy is one, and like any simplistic juvenile poster, you still think it's all about the goalie. If they win you'll give that excuse, since it will not destroy your pet theories about tanking and needing top 5 picks and such.

Quote:
You talked about how we shouldn't do this years ago.
Never said that. You twist my words and intent, but what should I expect, you have an attention span of a fraction of a second, and instead of actually reading what people say, and taking in their POV, you decide their underlying logic for them.


Quote:
You were wrong then and I suspect you're probably wrong now.
No, I'm still right. A team like the Habs can't have the luxury of tanking or missing the playoffs, because of financial stability. A team like the Leafs could do it because missing the playoffs has never hurt their financial stability, but they didn't do it anyway.

I would be wrong if I actually had the false intent and false POV you put on me, but that's not reality.

Quote:
And unfortunately, I don't see any indications that we're going to do anything differently in the future so all we can do is hope that Price (our only top 5 in 25 years) can lead us somewhere because Lord knows that without him we have no chance at all.
You have tunnel vision that's why you don't see 'it'. You only see one way, your way. You're still clinging to the trite and archaic "the goalie is everything" logic.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 05:00 PM
  #69
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Bottom line though is that by taking the 'we're a middle of the pack' team approach and trying to win is that you're basically hoping that you can luck your way into the cup. It's certainly possible but I'd just prefer that we proactively try to make our team a contending club. It's not like this is impossible to do man.

Let's assume that we have our superstar in Price. Let's even hope that best case scenario MaxPac and Subban are the real deal too. That's something to build around right? But these guys aren't there yet and we have vets who aren't really going to lead us anywhere. So, why not deal the vets and give more icetime to the kids? And get more prospects to develop along with them?

I don't think we should tank either man. And the fact is with Price in net it wouldn't work if we tried. That doesn't mean that we can't at least try to trade for prospects or other clubs picks.

And flip it around for a second... what if Subban doesn't turn into a superstar? What if, the guy just never really develops his defensive side of the game and becomes a PP specialist and that's it? And if MaxPac turns into a Brian Savage?

What are we left with then? Price and that's about it.

We need MORE good young players and we just don't have enough right now. Eller is probably a 2nd liner at best and we've got some young kids on the blueline that can provide us depth for the future but we need top end talent. We've lacked this ingredient forever and it's hurt us. Maybe we have a top end goalie now. That's a start but we shouldn't just get mediocre players to surround him with and then hope for the best. I don't see how that's practical dude.

When you draft high for multiple years, you hope you find a superstar. We've drafted high once and landed Price. So we're already part way there.

As for rebuilding, I don't think you need to be putrid on the ice. We've made a couple of rebuild moves already with dealing for Gorges and a pick that turned into MaxPac. Eller was also dealt for. 1st overalls may not be traded for often but 1st rounders are dealt all the time. Even if we don't land a superstar this way at least we can surround our goalie with good young players that have a shot at doing something.

There's no reason we can't continue to make those kinds of moves and continue to hang onto our draft picks in the process.

The alternative is to either keep doing things the way we always have or maybe trade away picks to try to land some kind of difference maker. Personally, I'd shy away from those options because I don't think we're just one player away and I think dealing away picks would hurt us in the long run.
I think that the "middle of the pack" approach, because of how close the competition is, is basically the only approach considered as acceptable by a lot of people around the NHL.
Last examples, Minnesota and Columbus, this summer. There is too much at stake.

A good management, once he can use a decent team like ours, can lead that team to the next level.

Its not impossible to do, but right now, considering how the things have turned out during the last years, i believe that a real rebuild is much more difficult than expected by the fans.

Trading our vets to give more icetime to the kids ?
You perfectly know that they got the icetime they deserve.
Otherwise, they're just not ready to assume that duty for the next years (3-4 years, at least). Even if you trade Gionta, Pacioretty and Desharnais are not going to play more. And Gallagher is not going to play for the team either.

First, you need to reach the cap floor. Trade away Gionta, Spacek or Cammalleri, fine, but you're already closer to the floor than the ceiling. You cant start from scratch.
Then, there is the problem of getting a good return from them.

They're good players, for the most part, but they could be considered as overpaid.
No one is going to overpay for an overpaid player. Thats just too much.
This is connected to another debate around the board, but its quite common to see some teams unable to deal their talent when they "need" it.
Anyway, Cammalleri is the only trade-able player with value. Plekanec cant be traded because of our weaknesses and his own ability. The others, well...they are not good/cap-friendly enough to give you more than a good prospect, not likely to be better than the player you give away in the process.

What if Subban or Pacioretty doesnt turn into a superstar ? Well, thats the exact same problem with a rebuild.
You're worried that Subban might disappoint you, but why the prospect you got for Cole should be different ?

Gionta is overpaid, but if we do the maths, he's very probably a Top-20 pick in an average draft class.
You're not going to have a 1st round pick from a non-playoff team for Gionta, you're not going to have such a good prospect either.

The point is that you'll be lucky to find a better player than Gionta with the assets you'll receive after dealing him.
We often forget this, but Gionta, like Cammalleri or any other vet, was a prospect, but a prospect who did reach the expectations (or even better...).

You think that Eller is going to be a 2nd liner at best. Just think about that.
The guy was traded for, at the time, a brillant 24 yo goalie. If thats only good enough for a 2nd liner, what do you need for a 1st liner ?...

Every single team need more young players. Why would they trade them, drafted or undrafted (prospects or picks) for your own vets ?
The thing is to not act like an idiot in July.


Yes, we picked once in the Top-5, but we were incredibly lucky. Lucky at the lottery, picking 5th with only one ball at this special draft was quite an achievement. Then, "lucky" because of our scouting staff, confident enough in Price.

There is no such thing as drafting high. Its either you suck so bad that you're drafting first or second overall, or you're screwed because there is often a gap between these players and the rest of the pack.

Just look at these succesful teams.
Washington : Ovechkin, 1st.
Pittsburgh : Crosby and Fleury, 1st.
Chicago : Kane, 1st.
Tampa : Stamkos, 1st.
LA : Doughty, 2nd.


Each one of them had to be horrible on the ice for more than one year, each of these star players is playing alongside another very high pick.(not exactly concerning LA, because Johnson was drafted by the Hurricanes, but i'll say that still counts.).

Now, lets look at the teams who did suck, but never had the chance to draft higher than 3rd.

Carolina. Florida. Atlanta. Phoenix. Colorado...
I think you can understand where this is going.

You cannot take the Rivet trade as an example.
Wilson did a bad move. If you expect to progress and improve your team by waiting mistakes from the other GM, i hope you're a patient guy.
Sure, they do mistakes, once in a while, but being at the other end and being the lucky guy, that doesnt happen often. The only example in my mind is Burke with Toronto (Phaneuf and Lombardi), but he paid for the risks with Kessel...

1st rounders are dealt all the time, yes, quality picks, no.
And especially not if the other teams are worried about your rebuild...Edmonton, Colorado, Florida, Islanders, just look at their draft history over the last 4-5 years. (They're not worried per se, but if you start to collect the picks, its going to tougher after a while...)


I said it earlier, but the 23rd or 26th overall pick is not going to give you a better player than Gionta.
We do have a good scouting staff, but you cant take this chance in the situation we are right now. If we would be like the Wild or the Blue Jackets, yes, maybe, but now, its impossible, because you have a much bigger chance to lose your bet, and thats not good for the business.

Thats not purely related, but considering the bipolarity and the incredible lack of patience of the fans around the team, i just dont think thats going to work.

Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 05:13 PM
  #70
LastRide
Registered User
 
LastRide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,210
vCash: 500
While Cammy can pop a few goals in. He's a horrible passer. Constantly I see his passes intercepted, and lead to dangerous counter attacks. Not quite the Kovalev level, but close. His work ethic could be a little better too.

LastRide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 06:07 PM
  #71
HeShootsHeScores
Registered User
 
HeShootsHeScores's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,257
vCash: 500
Cammy always manage to put up point despite playing terrible games. He can suck all game if he wants, if he gets one oppotunity, he scores. 2 oppotunities, 2 goals.

I miss the Cammy that scored that goal :



He created his own oppotunity.

Now he seems to depend on the guy who's gonna make an incredible pass right on his stick.

He is like Carey Price (though I think it has changed). He can play great and make it look easy, or he can totally suck and look terribly careless.

HeShootsHeScores is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 10:47 PM
  #72
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I never argued AGAINST those moves. Unlike you, I am a realist and a pragmatist, and understand that an organization as the Habs, who have had financial trouble in the past, needs its revenue stream more than anything else, and that means they can't trade away the core and miss the playoffs. Again, you put words into my mouth, and false intent. You decided what my intent was. You're not even able to understand the basic necessities of the organization (financial stability) and like a teen who only sees his own grand opinion as the solution, you disregard anything that doesn't fit your perception. I'm all for trading players to get top-end prospects. The difference is, I understand WHY they can't do it. You can't even make the difference between those two things, and rather stick a false intent on me.
Dude, at the mere mention of us dealing away Markov you flipped out. Flipped out...

Please don't say you argued against this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Yes it has. Cammalleri is a star player, but you'll deny this so you can keep spouting your demagogy. Conventional way is anything that you see regularly. It's as if you're saying signing UFAs is common, but trading prospects and star players is not. That's entirely false. They are all common, they are all conventional. When you say "thinking out of the box", what you don't realize is that it's actually "let's not consider basic neccesities (yearly financial stability). Didn't the Habs trade Halak for Eller? They did because in that case they had the luxury of not having to meet the basic necessities. Trading one of the two wasn't as high a risk vs getting playoff money, then trading guys like Koivu or Kovalev at the other time you mentioned, who were essential for present playoff contention.
Cammy has never even hit 40 goals. I think he's a very good player and teams would love to have him but he's not good enough to lead this team to a cup. He's good enough to help a contending team win but we aren't there.

As for yearly financial stability? Really? Are you serious here? C'mon man... That's just about the best laugh I've had all day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
See, that's unrealistic. It's all fine and dandy in theory, and is a concept that anyone who has played GM in hockey video games can grasp. That's most people here, so stop thinking you're a genius and you have the ultimate solution. Everybody knows that strategy. Only the astute understand that it can't work here, in the mandates that Habs management have, which is yearly playoff viability to ensure financial stability. They can do it, but only when depth at the given position is ensured for yearly playoff viability (like with Halak, like with what will happen with Gomer as we now have bigger depth at center).
It's unrealistic? Okay...

I guess letting our core walk away for zero return though IS realistic right? Because that's what happened.

And it's hilarious that you cited video games because that's exactly what happened here. We had X-Box type trades and signings that no sane GM would ever make if he realistically wanted to build a cup winner. We let our entire core walk away for nothing... how in the world can you sit there and say... rebuilding could never happen when this carnival act was going on? There's absolutely no way to justify your argument here.

If the club can watch those guys bolt for zero and deal away one of our best prospects for Gomez, then we sure as hell could've announced a reubuild and gone that route. Other clubs have done this and we had clearly given up on our core (a core that you said we couldn't blow up back then too) so why get another core that wasn't much better (if at all) than the one we gave up?

It made no sense at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Like a child
Oh Lord the irony here... You really have to stop using words like immature and childish man. You're making yourself look foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
you refure to see reality and instead impose unrealistic intentions on the organization. It's not stubborness, it's realistic management, based on their own immediate necessities.
Realistic? How?

How does letting your core walk for nothing resonate with you? How can you defend this line of thought? It's absolutely ridiculous for you top propose that we couldn't have gone the other route. Of course we could've. But we didn't.

We did it... the traditional way. The way that you are claiming teams HAVE to do it. Well, they don't HAVE to do it that way. Other clubs have rebuilt and it's paid off for them. Unlike us they actually do rebuild their clubs. It happens all the time and we just sit here and tread water replacing our mediocre players with... MORE mediocre players. The end result? More bubble teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
You're whole point here is only based on your weak vision of what it takes to win. You need playoff performers to win, and Cammy is one,
Really? Wow. That's wonderful insight. Thanks for this.

Wake up man. Sure you need playoff players to win. You also need to surround them with a good core. Our core is not strong enough to win now. That's the point.

Cammy though... is good enough to help a club that is an actual contender win a cup. That's why we'd actually get a good return for him. We aren't good enough now. But with the youth that we have we could be good enough later. That's why it makes sense to deal for the future.

Joe Niewendyke was a good player but the Flames knew they couldn't win so they dealt him. Did it help them immediately? Of course not, but they landed a player they believed they could build around and it landed them Iginla.

Yes, it's a risk and yes it takes courage to do this. Most bubble clubs WON'T do this because they want to pursue 8th place. But the Flames did and got a franchise player. That is "thinking outside the box."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
and like any simplistic juvenile poster,
Again man, you're quick to throw out these kinds of silly insults. Take a look in the mirror. I'm sorry if you feel like you're getting thrashed here but your personal insults aren't going to phase me. And I'll just delete most of the ones coming up in the rest of your post as I'm just not going to get into that with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
you still think it's all about the goalie. If they win you'll give that excuse, since it will not destroy your pet theories about tanking and needing top 5 picks and such.
It IS all about our goalie man. It's been about our goalies for years.

Anyone not in this forum can see this.

As for him being our only superstar and a top 5 player... you think this is coincidence?

And as far as an "excuse" goes? Man... I'm not sure what to say to this dude. If we win a cup... I won't care how we do it. I'll just be happy to see us win. And I'll be HAPPY to admit that I was wrong about this club if we win. There's no doubt that I think Price will have to lead us to a cup but even if he does, I'd still come on here and be happy to say I was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
No, I'm still right. A team like the Habs can't have the luxury of tanking or missing the playoffs, because of financial stability. A team like the Leafs could do it because missing the playoffs has never hurt their financial stability, but they didn't do it anyway.
The Leafs can do it but we can't? Okay...

Can I have some of what you're drinking please? You do realize that we are the MONTREAL Canadiens right? Not the Atlanta Canadiens? Just checking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I would be wrong if I actually had the false intent and false POV you put on me, but that's not reality.
So you agree we should've traded Koivu and Markov then? Which is it dude? Because I'm pretty sure that you freaked out when folks suggested we trade them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
You have tunnel vision that's why you don't see 'it'. You only see one way, your way. You're still clinging to the trite and archaic "the goalie is everything" logic.
Our star goalie is our only prayer of winning anything man. If he doesn't play like God, we aren't going anywhere with the club we have. Anyone in the world (outside this forum anyway) can see this.

What do we have right now?

We've got a broken (yes broken) Markov. We've got Cammy. And we've got Price. Then we've got the youngsters.

How is that in any way better than what say the Rangers (another bubble team with great goaltending has?) Are you expecting them to win it this year?

I forgot though, you've been telling us that Markov was going to come back and save us for the past two years. Even this summer it was: "when Markov comes back..." Well, (surprise) he's not back. And even when he comes back there's a good chance he'll just go down again. He's a high risk player at this point. I don't care how many times you compare the seriousness of his injuries to a concussion, it's still a problem and it's not something we can count on. If he comes back... great. But to sit there and count on him to be healthy is... uh let's put it this way, a best case scenario.

We have Price and without him we'd be hard pressed to even make the playoffs let alone win a cup. And even with him, we could still miss the postseason with the squad we have now.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 11:27 PM
  #73
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
I think that the "middle of the pack" approach, because of how close the competition is, is basically the only approach considered as acceptable by a lot of people around the NHL.
Last examples, Minnesota and Columbus, this summer. There is too much at stake.

A good management, once he can use a decent team like ours, can lead that team to the next level.

Its not impossible to do, but right now, considering how the things have turned out during the last years, i believe that a real rebuild is much more difficult than expected by the fans.
I don't think it would be. I think it would be easier than most because we're much further ahead than most rebuilding clubs are. We've got three great prospects to work with and some more that could be considered depth. That's not a bad place to start. And as you said (and I agreed with you) we're not going to finish dead last with the young guys we have even if we dealt away the vets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Trading our vets to give more icetime to the kids ?
You perfectly know that they got the icetime they deserve.
Otherwise, they're just not ready to assume that duty for the next years (3-4 years, at least). Even if you trade Gionta, Pacioretty and Desharnais are not going to play more. And Gallagher is not going to play for the team either.
Sure. But the prospects you bring in can play with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
First, you need to reach the cap floor. Trade away Gionta, Spacek or Cammalleri, fine, but you're already closer to the floor than the ceiling. You cant start from scratch.
Then, there is the problem of getting a good return from them.
So keep Gomez. Keep some vets, we don't have to deal ALL of them away. I'm just saying we should trade away the ones that can bring us a good return. We could still keep say... Gomez and maybe somebody like Cole. We probably won't get anything for them anyway.

But, if we get a great prospect for Cammy... do it. Make the trades that make us better for the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
They're good players, for the most part, but they could be considered as overpaid.
No one is going to overpay for an overpaid player. Thats just too much.
This is connected to another debate around the board, but its quite common to see some teams unable to deal their talent when they "need" it.
Anyway, Cammalleri is the only trade-able player with value. Plekanec cant be traded because of our weaknesses and his own ability. The others, well...they are not good/cap-friendly enough to give you more than a good prospect, not likely to be better than the player you give away in the process.
Sure we can deal Pleks. We can deal anyone if the price is right. Just don't deal away youth or picks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
What if Subban or Pacioretty doesnt turn into a superstar ? Well, thats the exact same problem with a rebuild.
You're worried that Subban might disappoint you, but why the prospect you got for Cole should be different ?
If we get more prospects to replace them at least we're further ahead. If we don't we are starting at zero. As for the prospect that we get from a vet... maybe he doesn't pan out. But that's why you trade for more than one. The more you have the better your odds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Gionta is overpaid, but if we do the maths, he's very probably a Top-20 pick in an average draft class.
You're not going to have a 1st round pick from a non-playoff team for Gionta, you're not going to have such a good prospect either.

The point is that you'll be lucky to find a better player than Gionta with the assets you'll receive after dealing him.
We often forget this, but Gionta, like Cammalleri or any other vet, was a prospect, but a prospect who did reach the expectations (or even better...).
Of course they were prospects. And if Cammy was 23 I'd be all for getting him. Heck, he was a guy I wished we'd targeted years ago when I called for a rebuild when we had Koivu.

This is an important point here... Individually, some of these guys are definitely the kind of guys that can help win cups. That's why they have trade value. But collectively (in my opinion anyway) I don't see it happening with the team we have now. That's why it probably makes sense to get younger players to build with. I love Cammy, always have. He's the one guy that might actually be worth the contract when he's healthy. I just don't think he's going to help us win anything right now though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
You think that Eller is going to be a 2nd liner at best. Just think about that.
The guy was traded for, at the time, a brillant 24 yo goalie. If thats only good enough for a 2nd liner, what do you need for a 1st liner ?...

Every single team need more young players. Why would they trade them, drafted or undrafted (prospects or picks) for your own vets ?
The thing is to not act like an idiot in July.
There are many ways to look at that trade and it depends on who you ask. Many feel we didn't get enough. Others, felt that Halak was traded for high and wasn't even worth Eller and point to his 2nd string status now as proof. Still others think Eller is going to be a beast...

Personally, I thought we could've gotten more but obviously our scouts felt that he was worth it. They've been right more than they've been wrong and maybe they'll be right on this one. There are a lot of folks who feel he's going to bust out soon. I guess we have to wait and see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Yes, we picked once in the Top-5, but we were incredibly lucky. Lucky at the lottery, picking 5th with only one ball at this special draft was quite an achievement. Then, "lucky" because of our scouting staff, confident enough in Price.
Yes we were. Stupidly lucky in fact.

But the bottom line is... we still got that pick and it landed us our best player. He's with us now and we can build with him. If we didn't have him, then I think we'd actually be in a position to actually (unintentionally) tank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
There is no such thing as drafting high. Its either you suck so bad that you're drafting first or second overall, or you're screwed because there is often a gap between these players and the rest of the pack.
Or you can trade for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Just look at these succesful teams.
Washington : Ovechkin, 1st.
Pittsburgh : Crosby and Fleury, 1st.
Chicago : Kane, 1st.
Tampa : Stamkos, 1st.
LA : Doughty, 2nd.
Sure.

But what about Vancouver? They dealt for not one but two top picks. Neither was a number one and both have won scoring titles. No, they haven't won a cup but that's not bad is it?

As far as LA goes... how about Jack Johnston? He was traded for as a prospect. They also got Kopitar top ten. Ottawa traded for picks and prospects that turned into Redden, Spezza and Chara. Boston (though they got lucky) got Seguin. Washington traded for Colorado's first this year (though Colorado is performing better than expected) and that could turn out to be good too. They also dealt for tons of picks as well. Kyle Turris (though certainly controversial) is out there now and can probably be had at some point too. Luongo was traded for as a prospect. Those kinds of players and picks CAN be acquired but it's easier to get them before they become stars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
Each one of them had to be horrible on the ice for more than one year, each of these star players is playing alongside another very high pick.(not exactly concerning LA, because Johnson was drafted by the Hurricanes, but i'll say that still counts.).

Now, lets look at the teams who did suck, but never had the chance to draft higher than 3rd.

Carolina. Florida. Atlanta. Phoenix. Colorado...
I think you can understand where this is going.
Look, you need more than a top five to win. No doubt about it man and I would never say otherwise. But to be fair here look at your examples.

Florida actually traded for Luongo as a prospect and then gave him away for a bag of toys. That's just bad management. And they didn't have anything to go with Horton or Jokinen (who they also got as a prospect).

Carolina won a cup with Staal so that's not too bad right?

Atlanta drafted two 50 goal scorers (and unfortunately one of them killed a teammate and had to leave) and didn't win. Okay... but it's not Kovalchuk's fault that they didn't win. They lost in SPITE of drafting him and Heatley not because of it. If anything, Atlanta being totally inept is actually an example of why drafting high actually works. If they can find two 50 goal scorers drafting high with their management and scouting... Heck, even Columbus found a Richard winner.

Colorado shouldn't be cited here. It is too soon to say but they already have Duchene. Would you like to have him? How do you think adding him would impact our club?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
You cannot take the Rivet trade as an example.
Wilson did a bad move. If you expect to progress and improve your team by waiting mistakes from the other GM, i hope you're a patient guy.
Sure, they do mistakes, once in a while, but being at the other end and being the lucky guy, that doesnt happen often. The only example in my mind is Burke with Toronto (Phaneuf and Lombardi), but he paid for the risks with Kessel...
Even if we exclude Gorges from the deal, it wouldn't be unrealistic to have gotten a 24th overall. Yeah, it was a great, great trade and we can't expect them all to be that good. But you can't tell me that we haven't had the opportunity to get other first round picks in the p

And you can't tell me that Cammy wouldn't fetch a better return than this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
1st rounders are dealt all the time, yes, quality picks, no.
And especially not if the other teams are worried about your rebuild...Edmonton, Colorado, Florida, Islanders, just look at their draft history over the last 4-5 years. (They're not worried per se, but if you start to collect the picks, its going to tougher after a while...)


I said it earlier, but the 23rd or 26th overall pick is not going to give you a better player than Gionta.
Even if it doesn't... it still doesn't matter. We would be getting younger players and we could address the size issues. We could also leverage that pick with others to move up in the draft. Teams do that all the time. And at the end of the day a guy like Cammy is going to fetch better than a 26th overall pick. And if he doesn't... fine. Keep him. Keep him until you get an offer that is worth trading for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga View Post
We do have a good scouting staff, but you cant take this chance in the situation we are right now. If we would be like the Wild or the Blue Jackets, yes, maybe, but now, its impossible, because you have a much bigger chance to lose your bet, and thats not good for the business.

Thats not purely related, but considering the bipolarity and the incredible lack of patience of the fans around the team, i just dont think thats going to work.
What are they going to do? The club has corporate sponsorship and if the fans were going to leave they would've done so long ago.

BTW, this is a very good post. You wrote some pretty good objections. I don't agree with you but there are some good arguments that you've made here. Many of your objections I've thought about in the past but I can't remember anyone bringing up. And it's probably the best post I've seen against my arguments in a while. You may not want my respect but after this post, you have it anyway.

BTW, I saw you mentioned Johnson after I did. I saw that after I had already cited him. I know you want to lump him in with the others in LA but I think it's another example of a prospect that can be dealt for.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 11-02-2011 at 11:34 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 02:59 AM
  #74
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,160
vCash: 500
like any player, if the right deal is on the table, then you make it.

i think it's clear we have lots of differing opinions on what that deal would need to be for cammy.

From my POV, Cammy is a nice player to have, clearly has shown himself capable of scoring in the PO's, which is a valuable commodity.

but his inconsistency in the regular seasons, combined with his salary, and the fact that his playoff scoring would potentially make him very appealing to some GM's... all these factors make it that I'd move him quickly if the right package of young talent was coming the other way.

right now, our 5 "top" fwds = 28M$, and not one of them is a ppg player. that's concerning imo.

Cammy & Gionta are, in my mind, a bit redundant. Cammy is a better pure scorer, but Gionta brings more work ethic on a consistent basis (despite being 1M$ cheaper, wouldn't likely garner the same return).
Factor in Gomez (and even if we moved him, DD), and I think the money we have tied up in those two would be better suited if we kept one and diverted the money freed up by moving the other to building a more diverse top-6 (or making sure we upgrade our D).

So it's not so much a question of not appreciating what Cammy does bring, it's just that we are paying a premium for it, and i think we could stand to move him and re-invested those $$ in a way that better complements the existing roster... not too mention adding the assets he'd hopefully bring back.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 05:49 AM
  #75
Rutabaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't think it would be. I think it would be easier than most because we're much further ahead than most rebuilding clubs are. We've got three great prospects to work with and some more that could be considered depth. That's not a bad place to start. And as you said (and I agreed with you) we're not going to finish dead last with the young guys we have even if we dealt away the vets.
What do you mean by being ahead of the other teams in the process ?
Being ahead because we have players already settled in the team, or being ahead because of the superior potential ?
Anyway, it doesnt matter. Not our fault, but a team like Washington or Pittsburgh is always going to be ahead of us for the first case.
For the second one, teams like Atlanta or Florida (Pavelec/Markström - Bogosian/Gudbranson - Kane/Huberdeau) probably have a better potential through their prospects.

I think that if you dont finish dead last (or 29th), its not worth it, because the prospects you are going to add are not that much better than the ones you have right now. They dont justify the 2+ years of misery.

Lets compare Evander Kane and Max Pacioretty for instance, Pacioretty is not that far at all from the Jets player. Kane was picked 4th overall, the kind of pick you may have in such a situation if you're not really last.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Sure. But the prospects you bring in can play with them.
I dont understand what do you mean by :
"But the prospects you bring in can play with them" about the competition between vets and prospects.
Its either you deal away your vets, or you dont, and the prospects are still playing in AHL or CHL.
But you'll never see a team not playing a prospect because of the vets of the team. If he is good enough to kick him down in the depth chart, he will. Gomez was still around, Eller was already there, but our management still promoted Desharnais in Montreal.

Anyway, dealing the vets to "let the young players play" just for the sake of it is a mistake. Not sure if im clear about this, but i dont have the words to explain it better right now.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
So keep Gomez. Keep some vets, we don't have to deal ALL of them away. I'm just saying we should trade away the ones that can bring us a good return. We could still keep say... Gomez and maybe somebody like Cole. We probably won't get anything for them anyway.

But, if we get a great prospect for Cammy... do it. Make the trades that make us better for the future.

Im sorry, but you have to deal all of your vets. Otherwise, you finish at 11th or 12th.
Thats exactly where no one wants to be.
At least, the useful players. Gomez is a special case.
The problem being that because of the floor, you cant deal each of them in one year.

Trading Cammalleri, i can see why some are interested, but you're giving up a 30-goal scorer.
There is rarely more than 3 or 4 30-goal scorer per draft class. And this kind of prospect is not traded (whats the point of such a trade for the team giving up such a prospect ?), so you have to deal for a pick to have a chance to find, at least, a player as good as him. You're going to lose your bet.

The 30-goal scorers in the last drafts, are almost always picked in the 6 or 7 first picks. Cammalleri is not going to be enough for a 5th overall pick. Gambling while trying to find a player like Benn or Hornqvist, thats not good management, thats pure luck, even if your scouting staff did wonders.

Thats possibly because of the nature of the board we are on, but trading a player like Cammalleri hoping you'll have a prospect and future as good as him, i dont really understand why its a good move.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Sure we can deal Pleks. We can deal anyone if the price is right. Just don't deal away youth or picks.

If we get more prospects to replace them at least we're further ahead. If we don't we are starting at zero. As for the prospect that we get from a vet... maybe he doesn't pan out. But that's why you trade for more than one. The more you have the better your odds.
For this team, right now, Plekanec is not trade-able. The price is never going to be right.
Unless you want to finish 13th, in that case, yes. Not sure you like that idea, though.
But he is trade-able only in the case of a rebuild, which is impossible to do with the young players we already have. If we trade him, our center depth is absolutely not good enough for a play-off spot, we are going to finish at the worst possible place, like 12th, and it will hurt the development of several players. (Eller and Desharnais as the obvious ones).
And a rebuild is always going to be long...2 years in the basement is the least you can use to really have a shot later.

"But that's why you trade for more than one. The more you have the better your odds. "
Which odds ? To find a NHL player, or to find a good NHL player ?
Thats not the same.
Good picks and prospects are traded for very good players.
There is a different world between the elite players and the rest of the pack, just like there is a different world between the "elite picks/prospects" and the rest of the pack.

Like i said, you dont trade Gionta, hoping that the 36th overall pick plus the B prospect you got are going to be as useful as he was, because he may be overpaid, you're not going to find a return worth the trouble.
Yes, the player you got is younger, slightly cheaper (but not enough to give you the room for a real improvement somewhere else) and bigger. Nice. Only problem, instead of being a good 2nd liner like Gionta, he is a 3rd liner playing 14mins per game.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Of course they were prospects. And if Cammy was 23 I'd be all for getting him. Heck, he was a guy I wished we'd targeted years ago when I called for a rebuild when we had Koivu.

This is an important point here... Individually, some of these guys are definitely the kind of guys that can help win cups. That's why they have trade value. But collectively (in my opinion anyway) I don't see it happening with the team we have now. That's why it probably makes sense to get younger players to build with. I love Cammy, always have. He's the one guy that might actually be worth the contract when he's healthy. I just don't think he's going to help us win anything right now though.
If you think that individiually, these players are good enough to be in a very competitive team, then, the core of this team can lead you somewhere. You just need to tweak it, but its a core, so be careful with it. One bad move and you're screwed.
A GM is not going to start a rebuild while he can tweak his team. Its much safer business-wise and...job-wise, too.
Our case is special, the business is not in danger as long as Quebec doesnt have a team, but the corporate sponsorship can be affected by poor performances after a while.

Why would Cammalleri being unable to help us to win anything ? He did prove that in playoffs, he was there. Individually, thats enough.
Collectively, thats connected to other problems, but Cammalleri is not a problem. If Gomez is playing like a 7M$ player...thats a very good team you have there. The size problem, according to the lines of the coach can disappear now that we did improve that area this summer.
I'll also say that we are probably complexed by this problem, because i dont feel its that much of a problem.

(I'll also say that our usual killers, Philadelphia and to a lesser extent, Boston, did both lose some of their qualities to fit to a much more friendly profile for us.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
There are many ways to look at that trade and it depends on who you ask. Many feel we didn't get enough. Others, felt that Halak was traded for high and wasn't even worth Eller and point to his 2nd string status now as proof. Still others think Eller is going to be a beast...

Personally, I thought we could've gotten more but obviously our scouts felt that he was worth it. They've been right more than they've been wrong and maybe they'll be right on this one. There are a lot of folks who feel he's going to bust out soon. I guess we have to wait and see.
About the Halak/Eller trade, its a perfect example of how difficult it is to take this kind of decision. Gauthier was murdered by a lot of specialists and by the fans. Well, not stricto sensu, but you understand.
A better return than Eller ? This has been debated more than once, but thats special because there is only 30 spots available and not so many options for a trade. But thats the point. You always feel, because you actually dont know how its done, that you could have received more, but thats the problem when you're dealing with potential...we dont know


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yes we were. Stupidly lucky in fact.

But the bottom line is... we still got that pick and it landed us our best player. He's with us now and we can build with him. If we didn't have him, then I think we'd actually be in a position to actually (unintentionally) tank.

Or you can trade for them.
Trading for a Top-3 pick ? Impossible.
The last trade for such a pick, knowing how high it was, was done by Mike Milbury. 10 years ago. And it was one of the worst in history.

Sure, there is Burke's one with Kessel, but he did not know that he was going to draft that high, and honestly, i was not expecting such a fiasco either.

Today, its impossible to do such a deal without a big loser in the process. Its a very risky move. The kind of moves where you're screwing the franchise for a decade.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

But what about Vancouver? They dealt for not one but two top picks. Neither was a number one and both have won scoring titles. No, they haven't won a cup but that's not bad is it?

As far as LA goes... how about Jack Johnston? He was traded for as a prospect. They also got Kopitar top ten. Ottawa traded for picks and prospects that turned into Redden, Spezza and Chara. Boston (though they got lucky) got Seguin. Washington traded for Colorado's first this year (though Colorado is performing better than expected) and that could turn out to be good too. They also dealt for tons of picks as well. Kyle Turris (though certainly controversial) is out there now and can probably be had at some point too. Luongo was traded for as a prospect. Those kinds of players and picks CAN be acquired but it's easier to get them before they become stars.
Burke did manage to trade for the 2nd (so the point still stands, 1st or 2nd if you want to have great players) and 3rd overall in the same draft, but it was 12 years ago.
Still, he had to give away Bure, McCabe and their own first rounder in the process, i believe, and they were not part of playoffs during the last 3 or 4 years.
Its obviously difficult to compare the situations...

Jack Johnson was traded because of a disagreement with Rutherford, but it was, i think, a very mediocre move by the Canes.

Kopitar was a "regular" pick, by LA, at 10th or something like that, and they were the only ones balled enough to draft a player from Slovenia.

Spezza and Chara were traded (together) by the Great Mike Milbury, but it was more than 9-10 years ago...
Even if its not the most appropriate way to do this, just have a chat on the boards of the 5 worst teams in February, and ask them, what can i do to have your 1st round pick. It would take at least Subban and your own 1st round pick.

Now, is it worth it ?
Subban and Beaulieu for Larsson, is it ok ? Im not sure that its really such a good move.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Look, you need more than a top five to win. No doubt about it man and I would never say otherwise. But to be fair here look at your examples.

Florida actually traded for Luongo as a prospect and then gave him away for a bag of toys. That's just bad management. And they didn't have anything to go with Horton or Jokinen (who they also got as a prospect).

Carolina won a cup with Staal so that's not too bad right?

Atlanta drafted two 50 goal scorers (and unfortunately one of them killed a teammate and had to leave) and didn't win. Okay... but it's not Kovalchuk's fault that they didn't win. They lost in SPITE of drafting him and Heatley not because of it. If anything, Atlanta being totally inept is actually an example of why drafting high actually works. If they can find two 50 goal scorers drafting high with their management and scouting... Heck, even Columbus found a Richard winner.

Colorado shouldn't be cited here. It is too soon to say but they already have Duchene. Would you like to have him? How do you think adding him would impact our club?
The teams i listed as picking no higher than 3rd but with more than one good pick were involved in that situation after the lockout.
Phoenix and Atlanta did own several (at least 4 in my head) top-10 picks.
Staal, Luongo, Horton, they were drafted and developed mostly before the lockout, and thats not who i am talking about. Yes, drafting VERY high (as you said in Atlanta's case) works. But drafting high, does not. Oh oh oh.

Im talking about Bogosian, Burmistrov, Johnson, Frolik, Gudbranson, Ekman-Larsson, Turris, this kind of player.

I think its a good reason to think that you have to draft 1st or 2nd, and not being happy with trading 4th or 5th, because thats not enough.
They are good players, but they're not good enough to justify 2+ years of pain and tears.
If we talk about drafting Tavares, Seguin, ok, yes, but there is almost always a gap, and a very important one because of the repercussions.


Of course, you can try to acquire them before they are stars, but thats just not going to happen. If their original team trade them, there is something wrong.

The bad moves like Florida's or Islanders's of the past are not that common anymore. Their mistakes are done in a way that no one can benefit from it nowadays.

Except Phaneuf, i cant find any case of a young player (under 25) still full of promises traded for nothing.
And even when they're dealt for something, they're not that many.

Kessel, and it backfired, then, Byfuglien and Ladd because of the cap situation in Chicago, and two swaps with Stewart/Johnson plus Goligoski/Neal. Halak and Varlamov as goalies, but in each one of them, one team has been critisized badly.

You can think about Horton, but he did not live up to the expectations at his draft day, as are the vast majority other players traded when they're so young.

You are saying "you need more than a top five to win". I agree. You need better than a top five to win. And honestly, its even possible that its better AND more, according to the last examples.


I think that the main problem i have with this board is how differently we perceive how to measure the value of the players/return. I dont understand why you'll trade for a player who may be as good as the one you give away. I simply dont.

If he is probably going to be better, yes, i can understand, but unfortunately, thats not how the market works.

To finish that painfully long post, about Cammalleri, the price is not going to be right either. No one is going to offer us a reliable enough potential 30-goal scorer for him, and no one is going to give us a pick good enough to be confident about the fact that we can draft a 30-goal scorer.
Sure, you're not forced to draft a forward and a sniper, but the point is that you're not going to receive a player worth as much.


Last edited by Rutabaga: 11-03-2011 at 09:54 AM. Reason: To save the readers' head from an explosion.
Rutabaga 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 04:24 PM.

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.