After a few more loses, the panic mode will be over. Reality will set in, and move will start to be made with eye for next year. I believe that Molson looked at Ottawa and saw what Murray did in one year and thinks that Gauthier can do the same. With the trade deadline coming up, and the assets that we could move. If Molson didn t think Gauthier could do the job, he would be gone by now
Turris had no more upside than Plekanec or Eller. If we are to make a tarde for a center it has to be better than what we have. What's the point of Having Turris or Eller on the 4th line.
WTH are you talking about?
Turris is just starting his career. He was projected as a number one center a couple of years ago with star potential. He's obviously not as safe a centerman as a 30 year old vet but he has a hell of a lot more upside than Thomas Plekanec who is now in his prime and never will be any better than he is right now.
And since the trade Turris has been chugging along at close to a point per game pace. Well above what Pleks is producing at. So I'm not sure wth you're talking about here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price
You're ridiculous, you look at one trade and say we're not getting younger. The Cammalleri trade made us younger, Bourque is the same age, but we gained 2.7 mil cap room PLUS a 2nd and a solid prospect. 2 weeks ago most people would ahve been ecstatic at a 2nd and a solid prospect.
Yeah... right.
The 2nd has a 25 percent chance of even becoming an NHL player and we swapped one borderline NHL prospect for another. That is not a rebuilding move dude.
Just stop with this stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz
Yeah. After re-reading your post, I guess that wasn't an assumption.
It's not easy to make deals in that league, when there are another 28 GM in competition and they're all looking for that deal that will make their team better. As for Turris, I'm not sure he was what the Habs needed. This team already has a plethora of 2nd line centers with Plekanec, Desharnais and Eller (not there yet but should be some day). What they need is a bona fide first line center just like the Sens have with Spezza. In fact, the play of Spezza is the reason why the Sens are where they are. He's been amazing.
The thing is, getting that first line center is extremely difficult. If PG manages to pry a player like Getzlaf for Plekanec ++, I'd be all over that but I'm not holding my breath on him being able to achieve that.
You're right, getting an established star center is next to impossible. That's my whole point. You have to go after players with potential. Star centers may be impossible to get but strong prospects with good upside aren't.
I know Turris struggled in Phoenix but it was well known (and admitted by Phoenix) that he had been mishandled up until now. Three years ago this guy was a blue chip first line center. Now he's suddenly destined for a career as a 2nd or 3rd liner?
Kyle Turris could very well turn out to be a number one center. Maybe the odds aren't even 50 percent but even at 40 percent it's still a risk worth taking if you don't have to give up too much. The upside is worth it. I'd much rather take this kind of a gamble rather than give up Cammy for somebody's 30 year old problem child.
Or Turris might be the next Benoit Pouliot, who was also supposed to have first-line upside not long before he was traded to Montreal. Even though both are among LG's beloved top-5 picks without which no team can possibly do well. Come to think of it, Pouliot is also a cautionary tale on evaluating a player based purely on point production in a short stretch.
I'd say the odds of that he is the next Pouliot are better than the odds he ends up as a first-line center. More seriously, I think the most likely outcome is him settling along the lines of an offensively-minded second-line center; the kind of guy who gets somewhat soft icetime and uses it to produce offensively.
I don't think he's too likely to become better than Plekanec. Mind you, Turris becoming Plekanec would make this a pretty good deal for the Sens as it is. The comparison to Eller is apt, with Turris getting maybe a bit more offense and Eller being better against top opposition.
The 2nd has a 25 percent chance of even becoming an NHL player and we swapped one borderline NHL prospect for another. That is not a rebuilding move dude.
It never is a rebuilding move with you... get a prospect ? not good enough, get a pick ? not high enough, save $ didnt save enough.
It never is a rebuilding move with you... get a prospect ? not good enough, get a pick ? not high enough, save $ didnt save enough.
Lafleur's Guy is all about the top-5 picks. He's all about getting the kind of superstars Tampa, Columbus, and the Islanders have. He's nothing if not consistent.
Lafleur's Guy is all about the top-5 picks. He's all about getting the kind of superstars Tampa, Columbus, and the Islanders have. He's nothing if not consistent.
meh, if we ever get a top 5 pick, he'll probably complain it isnt the right kid
Turris is just starting his career. He was projected as a number one center a couple of years ago with star potential. He's obviously not as safe a centerman as a 30 year old vet but he has a hell of a lot more upside than Thomas Plekanec who is now in his prime and never will be any better than he is right now.
And since the trade Turris has been chugging along at close to a point per game pace. Well above what Pleks is producing at. So I'm not sure wth you're talking about here.
Yeah... right.
The 2nd has a 25 percent chance of even becoming an NHL player and we swapped one borderline NHL prospect for another. That is not a rebuilding move dude.
Just stop with this stuff.
You're right, getting an established star center is next to impossible. That's my whole point. You have to go after players with potential. Star centers may be impossible to get but strong prospects with good upside aren't.
I know Turris struggled in Phoenix but it was well known (and admitted by Phoenix) that he had been mishandled up until now. Three years ago this guy was a blue chip first line center. Now he's suddenly destined for a career as a 2nd or 3rd liner?
Kyle Turris could very well turn out to be a number one center. Maybe the odds aren't even 50 percent but even at 40 percent it's still a risk worth taking if you don't have to give up too much. The upside is worth it. I'd much rather take this kind of a gamble rather than give up Cammy for somebody's 30 year old problem child.
coreypronman He had top line upside, but significant unlikelihood he touches 2nd line. RT @Brochenski: @coreypronman what potential do you see in Turris?
coreypronman Despite little possession output as a 21 or 22 YO, some in the industry see Turris as a possible #2 or #1 center, latter a big reach.
coreypronman Will be good possession player for while. Misused badly last year. RT @bszwarz: @coreypronman thoughts on Lars Eller's development?
coreypronman Always been an Eller fan. Good 2nd/fringe 1st liner. RT @CynthiaC88C: @coreypronman Your toughts on Eller ? Potential?
Like I said earlier I also don't think the price Ottawa paid was small at all and since I don't think Phoenix would have wanted vets for him a deal from us would have looked like Beaulieu + something that is worth a bit more than a second since Runblad is worth more than Beaulieu. I prefer keeping Beaulieu and use our high pick to draft a foward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
Or Turris might be the next Benoit Pouliot, who was also supposed to have first-line upside not long before he was traded to Montreal. Even though both are among LG's beloved top-5 picks without which no team can possibly do well. Come to think of it, Pouliot is also a cautionary tale on evaluating a player based purely on point production in a short stretch.
I'd say the odds of that he is the next Pouliot are better than the odds he ends up as a first-line center. More seriously, I think the most likely outcome is him settling along the lines of an offensively-minded second-line center; the kind of guy who gets somewhat soft icetime and uses it to produce offensively.
I don't think he's too likely to become better than Plekanec. Mind you, Turris becoming Plekanec would make this a pretty good deal for the Sens as it is. The comparison to Eller is apt, with Turris getting maybe a bit more offense and Eller being better against top opposition.
Yeah Turris strikes me as a softer opposition/PP producer kind of guy but I could be wrong. I'm also kind of biased since I tend to value strong ES/matchup guys over slightly more productive but less complete players.
I'm equally worried with the notion that trading Plekanec is a good idea because the Habs have too many centers and he's got the most value.
I'm really curious, and more than a little worried, about what happens next, but the Habs' few seller moves have generally been good to awesome (Rivet for Gorges + 1st!)
LOL care to support this view with more than 1 trade?
Problem is we have a GM that is interested in saving his own ass, and an owner without a clue so expect terrible things.
This 100%, I think the owner thing is especially true, these two worry me. PG reminds of an 18 year old fan running a hockey team, he's scary bad imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI
not like we were in selling mode a lot in last decade or so...
Perhaps that was my point? We have never been a seller and never been a winner or favorite/real contender, for a team this mediocre for years, it's amazing we're the ones consistently giving away youth for free.
Management has been completely inept in this city for years. Time for a change in personnel and culture. Mike Cammelleri was right, there is a losing culture here, it's too bad he's gone to a team who's GM was probably one of a few worst than ours. Sutter was brutal, Feaster isn't very good either, but he's no Sutter. Sutter made Bob Gainey look good.
Last edited by Habsfan18: 01-21-2012 at 06:53 PM.
Reason: merge
This 100%, I think the owner thing is especially true, these two worry me. PG reminds of an 18 year old fan running a hockey team, he's scary bad imo.
Perhaps that was my point? We have never been a seller and never been a winner or favorite/real contender, for a team this mediocre for years, it's amazing we're the ones consistently giving away youth for free.
Management has been completely inept in this city for years. Time for a change in personnel and culture. Mike Cammelleri was right, there is a losing culture here, it's too bad he's gone to a team who's GM was probably one of a few worst than ours. Sutter was brutal, Feaster isn't very good either, but he's no Sutter. Sutter made Bob Gainey look good.
Or Turris might be the next Benoit Pouliot, who was also supposed to have first-line upside not long before he was traded to Montreal. Even though both are among LG's beloved top-5 picks without which no team can possibly do well. Come to think of it, Pouliot is also a cautionary tale on evaluating a player based purely on point production in a short stretch.
I'd say the odds of that he is the next Pouliot are better than the odds he ends up as a first-line center. More seriously, I think the most likely outcome is him settling along the lines of an offensively-minded second-line center; the kind of guy who gets somewhat soft icetime and uses it to produce offensively.
I don't think he's too likely to become better than Plekanec. Mind you, Turris becoming Plekanec would make this a pretty good deal for the Sens as it is. The comparison to Eller is apt, with Turris getting maybe a bit more offense and Eller being better against top opposition.
Absolutely he could. I don't deny that there's a risk. What I'm saying though is that these are the kinds of risks we should take.
Turris was projected to be great a few years back. Yes, he's been mismanaged and yes it might not work out. I'm not suggesting that we gut the team for him but yeah, this is the kind of guy we should be trying to get.
Time will tell I guess if I'm proven right on this. Turris could very well turn out to be a bust but I think he could have a really good career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllertoKostitsynGoal
coreypronman He had top line upside, but significant unlikelihood he touches 2nd line. RT @Brochenski: @coreypronman what potential do you see in Turris?
coreypronman Despite little possession output as a 21 or 22 YO, some in the industry see Turris as a possible #2 or #1 center, latter a big reach.
coreypronman Will be good possession player for while. Misused badly last year. RT @bszwarz: @coreypronman thoughts on Lars Eller's development?
coreypronman Always been an Eller fan. Good 2nd/fringe 1st liner. RT @CynthiaC88C: @coreypronman Your toughts on Eller ? Potential?
Like I said earlier I also don't think the price Ottawa paid was small at all and since I don't think Phoenix would have wanted vets for him a deal from us would have looked like Beaulieu + something that is worth a bit more than a second since Runblad is worth more than Beaulieu. I prefer keeping Beaulieu and use our high pick to draft a foward.
Yeah Turris strikes me as a softer opposition/PP producer kind of guy but I could be wrong. I'm also kind of biased since I tend to value strong ES/matchup guys over slightly more productive but less complete players.
And again, maybe you're right. But we've given away Cammy and Spacek for vets and secondary picks. I'd just rather we'd shopped for a guy like Turris. Maybe Phoenix wouldn't want those guys (they took a prospect after all) but maybe Cammy gets it done if we take some salary back...
As I said way at the beginning, I don't know if we tried to get him maybe we did. But when I see us being successful at landing vets it leads me to believe that those are the only kinds of guys that we're out there looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
There isn't... Montreal has only been a seller that year. Personally I think that's a good thing.
Yeah, it sure has panned out well for us. I mean, look at where we are today. Good thing we let all those assets walk away for nothing.
And again, maybe you're right. But we've given away Cammy and Spacek for vets and secondary picks. I'd just rather we'd shopped for a guy like Turris. Maybe Phoenix wouldn't want those guys (they took a prospect after all) but maybe Cammy gets it done if we take some salary back...
He doesn't, even while taking salary back. Phoenix held out till they got what they wanted and Cammy's value is lower than Runblad and a 2nd. Like I said it was gonna have to be Beaulieu++.
He doesn't, even while taking salary back. Phoenix held out till they got what they wanted and Cammy's value is lower than Runblad and a 2nd. Like I said it was gonna have to be Beaulieu++.
Beaulieu + a 2nd? Or do we have to include Ryder and Halak?
Beaulieu + a 2nd? Or do we have to include Ryder and Halak?
Didn't that 2nd end up becoming PK Subban?
Anyway I think Runblad has higher value on the market than Beaulieu so you're looking at something worth more than a second as a +. I don't think that would be worth it, much prefer getting a foward with our likely high pick and keep our deep core on defence. That defence could be amazing in a few years.
1 time doesn't constitute a pattern. Someone named mathman should probably agree. It was most likely luck. Gorges was a throw in who turned out great. It's not likely to repeat itself over and over again.
Wasn't discrediting the move, just the idea, that, because we got a decision right years ago, it doesn't necessarily indicate we're good at it, which was the implication. You disagree?
I'm fine with PG making deals along the lines of the Camm-Bourque trade: Dumped a salary, acquired an early round pick, didn't move a prospect, didn't deal an early round pick.
We didn't really improve much either, which means we'll likely be sellers at the deadline, and hopefully gain a lottery pick.
Absolutely he could. I don't deny that there's a risk. What I'm saying though is that these are the kinds of risks we should take.
Turris was projected to be great a few years back. Yes, he's been mismanaged and yes it might not work out. I'm not suggesting that we gut the team for him but yeah, this is the kind of guy we should be trying to get.
Time will tell I guess if I'm proven right on this. Turris could very well turn out to be a bust but I think he could have a really good career.
And again, maybe you're right. But we've given away Cammy and Spacek for vets and secondary picks. I'd just rather we'd shopped for a guy like Turris. Maybe Phoenix wouldn't want those guys (they took a prospect after all) but maybe Cammy gets it done if we take some salary back...
As I said way at the beginning, I don't know if we tried to get him maybe we did. But when I see us being successful at landing vets it leads me to believe that those are the only kinds of guys that we're out there looking for.
Yeah, it sure has panned out well for us. I mean, look at where we are today. Good thing we let all those assets walk away for nothing.
You have a hard time understanding basic stuff because you can't set realistic returns for our players. Cammy would never bring a 1st or a top prospect. Turris...LOL Ottawa had to give Runblad, not an overpaid lazy unidimensial bum like Cammy.
Of course the Cammy trade was a good trade and a good youth movement trade. We got a 2nd and a decent prospect + cap space + a decent NHL winger.
Be more realistic and PGs trades won't looka s bad, in fact, most of them have been good except the Kaberle one. Only trade I hate but I understand why it was made. They'll buy him out worse case scenario.
You have a hard time understanding basic stuff because you can't set realistic returns for our players. Cammy would never bring a 1st or a top prospect. Turris...LOL Ottawa had to give Runblad, not an overpaid lazy unidimensial bum like Cammy.
Of course the Cammy trade was a good trade and a good youth movement trade. We got a 2nd and a decent prospect + cap space + a decent NHL winger.
Be more realistic and PGs trades won't looka s bad, in fact, most of them have been good except the Kaberle one. Only trade I hate but I understand why it was made. They'll buy him out worse case scenario.
I think Cammy probably wouldn't have fetched him either man. Like I said above, based on what Phoenix took it appears as though they wanted a prospect. I would've loved to have gone the vet route but you might be (and probably are) right that we'd have had to go the prospect route.
I actually would've been okay with dealing one of our defensive prospects for him though. Again, our weakness is at center and Turris (while not without risk) is still a great prospect with more upside than anyone we have. Maybe it could've been a combination of vets and prospects whatever...
My overall point is that we don't seem to go after these kinds of players with the same kind of vigour that we do for vets.
