HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Rene Bourque OR Michael Cammalleri?

View Poll Results: Who would you rather be on the Habs?
Rene Bourque 219 81.72%
Michael Cammalleri 49 18.28%
Voters: 268. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-01-2012, 09:48 AM
  #126
llamateizer
Registered User
 
llamateizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Country:
Posts: 5,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Tricolore View Post
Are you saying Gomez isn't a natural scoring threat on the wing?
your avatar has 10X more scoring threat than Gomez

llamateizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:07 AM
  #127
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcal64 View Post
You mean like Holland and the 2nd round pick
No, I mean like prospects and picks that would be likely to actually have an impact on our team. There's a pretty good chance that neither Holland nor that 2nd even make the NHL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
He still thinks Cammy could have gotten us a 1st and/or a top propects
A mid 1st? Absolutley. Top prospect? Probably not. But we could've done better than a guy who's a borderline NHLer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
He's clueless...
Right back at you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
I wonder how much he thinks Gomez will get us?
Well, obviously Ryan McDonnaugh right? I'm pretty sure you defended that one too.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:14 AM
  #128
YMCMBeaulieu
A$AP MICHEL
 
YMCMBeaulieu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
No, I mean like prospects and picks that would be likely to actually have an impact on our team. There's a pretty good chance that neither Holland nor that 2nd even make the NHL.

A mid 1st? Absolutley. Top prospect? Probably not. But we could've done better than a guy who's a borderline NHLer.

Right back at you.

Well, obviously Ryan McDonnaugh right? I'm pretty sure you defended that one too.
If Bourque is a borderline NHLer than Cammalleri must be too since Bourque has outscored him the last 3 years...

YMCMBeaulieu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:20 AM
  #129
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pernell Karl View Post
If Bourque is a borderline NHLer than Cammalleri must be too since Bourque has outscored him the last 3 years...
We aren't talking about Bourque dude. I was responding to somebody's silly comment on the 2nd and the prospect. READ the posts before jumping in mid conversation man.

As for Bourque... it's a sideways move. That was my point. We've wasted an asset on a sideways move for a guy who isn't going to make us any better and we've got the window dressing 2nd rounder and borderline NHL player to go along with it.

This is not what we should've been trying to trade Cammy for. As I said, we should've been trying to trade him for picks and prospects. Not another 30 year old to go along with a 2nd and a middling prospect. We should've waited for the deadline to get closer and wait for teams to get more desperate. That's what smart teams would do. Instead, Cammy makes a comment that embarrasses PG and we go and make a knee jerk reactive move.

Totally stupid. And totally in line with how we've been running this organization for a long time now. That's why we are where we are. And yet, folks come here and continue to defend these kinds of moves, even in the face of us competing for last in the East.

It just shows me that our fans are no different than Leaf fans are. We're going to believe what we WANT to beleive. Never mind logic, nevermind results... we're just going to blindly trust management no matter what.

Well, how's that working out for us?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:23 AM
  #130
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
No, I mean like prospects and picks that would be likely to actually have an impact on our team. There's a pretty good chance that neither Holland nor that 2nd even make the NHL.

A mid 1st? Absolutley. Top prospect? Probably not. But we could've done better than a guy who's a borderline NHLer.

Right back at you.

Well, obviously Ryan McDonnaugh right? I'm pretty sure you defended that one too.
You should stop posting on message boards, comments like this are a waste of everybody's time.

So a guy with 90 goals the last 3 1/2 years(255 games) with size and a physical edge is a "borderline NHLer".


Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:25 AM
  #131
onebighockeyfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
We aren't talking about Bourque dude. I was responding to somebody's silly comment on the 2nd and the prospect. READ the posts before jumping in mid conversation man.

As for Bourque... it's a sideways move. That was my point. We've wasted an asset on a sideways move for a guy who isn't going to make us any better and we've got the window dressing 2nd rounder and borderline NHL player to go along with it.

This is not what we should've been trying to trade Cammy for. As I said, we should've been trying to trade him for picks and prospects. Not another 30 year old to go along with a 2nd and a middling prospect. We should've waited for the deadline to get closer and wait for teams to get more desperate. That's what smart teams would do. Instead, Cammy makes a comment that embarrasses PG and we go and make a knee jerk reactive move.

Totally stupid. And totally in line with how we've been running this organization for a long time now. That's why we are where we are. And yet, folks come here and continue to defend these kinds of moves, even in the face of us competing for last in the East.

It just shows me that our fans are no different than Leaf fans are. We're going to believe what we WANT to beleive. Never mind logic, nevermind results... we're just going to blindly trust management no matter what.

Well, how's that working out for us?
Ramo would never have come to Montreal. We saved cap space and got bigger. Cammy was not scoring. Two of our problems were size and cap space. You might see this as a sideways move, I think we have an advantage. Plus we got a better pick and a prospect. Holland has been doing pretty well in Ti-city.

onebighockeyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:25 AM
  #132
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
You should stop posting on message boards, comments like this are a waste of everybody's time.

So a guy with 90 goals the last 3 1/2 years(317 games) with size and a physical edge is a "borderline NHLer".

When did Holland score 90 goals? Because it sure wasn't in the NHL dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelletier666 View Post
Ramo would never have come to Montreal. We saved cap space and got bigger. Cammy was not scoring. Two of our problems were size and cap space. You might see this as a sideways move, I think we have an advantage. Plus we got a better pick and a prospect. Holland has been doing pretty well in Ti-city.
You're looking at it from a micro level. Even if Bourque saves us a little cap space his contract is longer and he's a 30 year old problem child. He's not going to address our long term needs and THAT's what we should be focusing on.

Ramo wasn't coming here? Fine. We want to trade Cammy? Great.

But don't waste those assets on sideways moves and medicore picks and prospects. Our whole approach is wrong. We shouldn't be looking at changing 30 year olds for other 30 year olds. It's just another quick fix to try to solve an immediate problem. If you're going to make a move... then trade for the future.

Instead, the principle return was another vet. Yeah, we got a middling prospect and a 2nd. Obviously that was enough to fool some folks here into beleiving that it was a rebuilding move. It wasn't. It was another example of us wasting an asset that we should've dealt for something to actually build on down the road or just held onto him.

Again though, people here believe what they want to believe and continue to defend these quick fix moves that don't address our real needs. This trade was another example of how we have no long term plan on building a contending team.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-01-2012 at 10:32 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:29 AM
  #133
Stjonnypopo
Rgesitreed Uesr
 
Stjonnypopo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mount Doom
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
When did Holland score 90 goals? Because it sure wasn't in the NHL dude.
So in your eyes we need to remove Bourque from the equation because it was a lateral move, so we "actually" only got a 2nd roudner and Holland in return.

How does that make sense at all?

I understand standing by your opinion but when your opinion sucks and you can't back up your stance then you should give up.

Stjonnypopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:34 AM
  #134
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stjonnypopo View Post
So in your eyes we need to remove Bourque from the equation because it was a lateral move, so we "actually" only got a 2nd roudner and Holland in return.

How does that make sense at all?
That's not what I said... at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stjonnypopo View Post
I understand standing by your opinion but when your opinion sucks and you can't back up your stance then you should give up.
If you're going to attack my posts that's fine. But attack what I'm actually saying.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:37 AM
  #135
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
When did Holland score 90 goals? Because it sure wasn't in the NHL dude.

You're looking at it from a micro level. Even if Bourque saves us a little cap space his contract is longer and he's a 30 year old problem child. He's not going to address our long term needs and THAT's what we should be focusing on.

Ramo wasn't coming here? Fine. We want to trade Cammy? Great.

But don't waste those assets on sideways moves and medicore picks and prospects. Our whole approach is wrong. We shouldn't be looking at changing 30 year olds for other 30 year olds. It's just another quick fix to try to solve an immediate problem. If you're going to make a move... then trade for the future.

Instead, the principle return was another vet. Yeah, we got a middling prospect and a 2nd. Obviously that was enough to fool some folks here into beleiving that it was a rebuilding move. It wasn't. It was another example of us wasting an asset that we should've dealt for something to actually build on down the road or just held onto him.

Again though, people here believe what they want to believe and continue to defend these quick fix moves that don't address our real needs. This trade was another example of how we have no long term plan on building a contending team.
Like usual you will be a hater.

Not going to waste time on this. Moving Cammy and getting that type of return gives us a much better outlook going forward. If we pass on that deal we may end up dumping him for nothing because his play was getting further and further from justifying 6 mil cap hit and 7 mil salary.

I think we got lucky to get such a good return because other than Calgary being desperate we probably don't get anything close from another team.

If Cammy was worth a mid 1st then Kaberle should be worth twice that since his cap hit is lower and at this point he is a more productive player.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:39 AM
  #136
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stjonnypopo View Post
So in your eyes we need to remove Bourque from the equation because it was a lateral move, so we "actually" only got a 2nd roudner and Holland in return.

How does that make sense at all?

I understand standing by your opinion but when your opinion sucks and you can't back up your stance then you should give up.
Don't try and make sense of his posts. Like Southerhabs or whatever he hates any move the team makes. We could trade Masse and Stafford for Stamkos and he'd find a way to complain taht we should ahve instaed gotten TB's 1st rounder because Stamkos doesn't help us rebuild truly.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:42 AM
  #137
gillyguzzler
Registered User
 
gillyguzzler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
I had the misfortune of listening to IDIOT Tony Marinaro this morning... he went on and on and on about how right he was about Bourque being an awful player and that he only plays one game out of ten and how awful he was last night. What an idiot this creep is! And creep is the right word... icky is another... He's a creepy icky arrogant soccer dad.

gillyguzzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:48 AM
  #138
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillyguzzler View Post
I had the misfortune of listening to IDIOT Tony Marinaro this morning... he went on and on and on about how right he was about Bourque being an awful player and that he only plays one game out of ten and how awful he was last night. What an idiot this creep is! And creep is the right word... icky is another... He's a creepy icky arrogant soccer dad.
To be fair, he's playing on the line where all hockey abilities go to die.

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:48 AM
  #139
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Like usual you will be a hater.
I don't think I've been a "hater" at all. If anything, I overestimated how good we'd be this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Not going to waste time on this. Moving Cammy and getting that type of return gives us a much better outlook going forward. If we pass on that deal we may end up dumping him for nothing because his play was getting further and further from justifying 6 mil cap hit and 7 mil salary.

I think we got lucky to get such a good return because other than Calgary being desperate we probably don't get anything close from another team.
Clubs are desperate to make the playoffs now and go on a run. Cammy has been great in the postseason and his contract is over after next year. It may be a little pricey sure, but we could've absorbed a contract on the return as long as it came with a 1st. No reason that we couldn't have gone after this. And there was NO reason to do it in such a hurry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
If Cammy was worth a mid 1st then Kaberle should be worth twice that since his cap hit is lower and at this point he is a more productive player.
Yeah right, a 34 year old over the hill defenseman with a three year contract is worth twice what Cammy is. This, in spite of the fact that Cammy's contract is shorter and he's 29 years old.

Once again, good work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Don't try and make sense of his posts. Like Southerhabs or whatever he hates any move the team makes. We could trade Masse and Stafford for Stamkos and he'd find a way to complain taht we should ahve instaed gotten TB's 1st rounder because Stamkos doesn't help us rebuild truly.
If I haven't defended many of the club's moves well... it's because we haven't made too many that were worth defending.

Unlike yourself, I understood that getting Gomez, Cammy and Gionta was poison in the first place. I understood that it made no sense to let our core walk for nothing only to replace them with MORE mediocre forwards and higher paychecks. I understood that getting Kaberle was a waste of time... That doesn't make me a hater, it just makes me smarter than you are.

We are sitting in 2nd to last in the East right now. I've been arguing against the quick fix moves we've been making, you've been defending them. Who's right here?

I've argued that we should rebuild with top picks and trading for prospects. Our top pick is our best player. Our two rebuilding moves yielded us Gorges, MaxPac and Eller. It sure seems like my philosophy is working out better for us than yours is.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-01-2012 at 11:48 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:49 AM
  #140
karatekid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 57
vCash: 500
If we had any centers for Bourque to play with this would be a steal and a half.

karatekid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 10:51 AM
  #141
gillyguzzler
Registered User
 
gillyguzzler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by karatekid View Post
If we had any centers for Bourque to play with this would be a steal and a half.
Why not play him with Eller and AK?

gillyguzzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 11:32 AM
  #142
MaKi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
When did Holland score 90 goals? Because it sure wasn't in the NHL dude.

You're looking at it from a micro level. Even if Bourque saves us a little cap space his contract is longer and he's a 30 year old problem child. He's not going to address our long term needs and THAT's what we should be focusing on.

Ramo wasn't coming here? Fine. We want to trade Cammy? Great.

But don't waste those assets on sideways moves and medicore picks and prospects. Our whole approach is wrong. We shouldn't be looking at changing 30 year olds for other 30 year olds. It's just another quick fix to try to solve an immediate problem. If you're going to make a move... then trade for the future.

Instead, the principle return was another vet. Yeah, we got a middling prospect and a 2nd. Obviously that was enough to fool some folks here into beleiving that it was a rebuilding move. It wasn't. It was another example of us wasting an asset that we should've dealt for something to actually build on down the road or just held onto him.

Again though, people here believe what they want to believe and continue to defend these quick fix moves that don't address our real needs. This trade was another example of how we have no long term plan on building a contending team.
I fully understand what Lafleurs Guy is saying, and I find it hard to believe that some people can't see the logic in his posts. Maybe it's because I don't post on here often enough to know each poster by name, and learn to hate certain posters opinions, but reading this is giving me a headache.

Reading Lafleurs Guy's post I could see his argument, and whether or not you agree with it, it's well formulated and makes sense. Since that, of all the posts I've read, the only person who understands his point and counters his argument is Carey Price when he said;
Quote:
Not going to waste time on this. Moving Cammy and getting that type of return gives us a much better outlook going forward. If we pass on that deal we may end up dumping him for nothing because his play was getting further and further from justifying 6 mil cap hit and 7 mil salary.
I understand Lafleurs Guy's argument, which is using our assets to build for the future (i.e. prospects, picks, young NHLers), but Carey Price brings up a good point in that Cammy's play wasn't getting any better and his value could have slid if we decided to wait. I think a post playoff run Cammy was probably the peak of his value, since then his value has slowly been coming down. On the other hand, as Lafleurs Guy said, teams might also get more desperate, or be more inclined to add that one guy they think will put them over the top heading into the post season. Do you not think that Cammy would be highly sought after by teams loading up for the playoffs with his recent playoff stats?

Anyway, I just wanted to get some logical discussion going, Lafleurs Guy deserves that at least from what I've seen in this thread. As I said before, I don't know what has gone on in the past, and whether or not that is affecting whether or not people are actually reading the posts or just dismissing them straight away.


Just one point I'd like to get your opinion on Lafleurs Guy, if we are trading our assets for prospects/picks and at best young NHLers who still need to develop, how do you think a guy like Cole, for example, would take that? Not that Cammy was playing that great to begin with, but when you start trading our top line players for picks, you have to bring guys up from the minors. If you trade Cammy with no current NHL talent coming back the other way you have to bump guys up all along the ladder. Blunden moves up to one of the top lines, Engqvist comes up, etc... For a guy who is already in his 30's don't you think seeing that might affect his morale?

MaKi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 11:44 AM
  #143
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaKi View Post
I fully understand what Lafleurs Guy is saying, and I find it hard to believe that some people can't see the logic in his posts. Maybe it's because I don't post on here often enough to know each poster by name, and learn to hate certain posters opinions, but reading this is giving me a headache.
Thanks. As I wrote above, many fans will defend management's moves to the death. They will do so not out of logic but out of a misguided sense of loyalty to the club. I've been critical of much (most) of the moves we've been making outside the draft. And unfortunately, most of the time I've been right.

The fact is that we've wasted a ton of assets for little return and we've engaged in quick fixes. Unfortunately, this has resulted in mostly mediocre teams. I've been vocal about this and the apologists don't want to hear it. That's why is some cases my posts are taken out of context. Many of these people do not want to take an honest look at what our team is doing. So when somebody offers criticism, it's just easier for them to distort and willfully misunderstand the posts so they can avoid actually discussing what I've said.

As I said, many people just believe what they WANT to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaKi View Post
Just one point I'd like to get your opinion on Lafleurs Guy, if we are trading our assets for prospects/picks and at best young NHLers who still need to develop, how do you think a guy like Cole, for example, would take that? Not that Cammy was playing that great to begin with, but when you start trading our top line players for picks, you have to bring guys up from the minors. If you trade Cammy with no current NHL talent coming back the other way you have to bump guys up all along the ladder. Blunden moves up to one of the top lines, Engqvist comes up, etc... For a guy who is already in his 30's don't you think seeing that might affect his morale?
I don't think it matters what Cole thinks. I'm sorry but he's an older vet who signed with a club that wasn't a contender in the first place. He signed a very good and longer contract than he probably would've gotten anywhere (or almost anywhere) else. He's also an older player that we could look at dealing as well.

Don't get me wrong. Cole has been fantastic for us and worth every penny that we've paid him this year. But really, we shouldn't have been adding a 30+ year old player anyway. He's just another quick fix. Good enough to make the playoffs with but not much else.

At the end of the day if we want to build a winner, I think we need superstars on the team. Price MAY be one, Subban MAY be another. That's actually great news and something to work with. I can't remember the last time we had a potential (let alone two) superstar on the team. But we're not winning right now anyway so why are we focusing on building with these older guys? Let's try to get the best young players we can so that as Subban and Price develop, we have other young stars to develop with them.

So if Cole wants out, that's fine. We can trade him. We should be looking to deal away vets right now anyway.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-01-2012 at 11:51 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 12:05 PM
  #144
Stjonnypopo
Rgesitreed Uesr
 
Stjonnypopo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mount Doom
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 506
You're completely pointless and your opinion isn't worth anything. You're the type of guy who makes the conversations worse.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Stjonnypopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 12:25 PM
  #145
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,332
vCash: 500
This will be my last post on the topic for now.

If you are serious about building a strong team down the road including any players currently here, you can't trade everybody and hang them out to dry for 2-3 years and expect them to come out super productive and key players in 2-3-4 years.

You said Cammalleri only had a year left on his contract in fact he had 2 1/2 PLUS he makes 7 mil the last 2 years, so forget about trading him to smaller markets. When you combine his cap hit, salary, 2 1/2 years left plus the level of his play this year, I think we made out like bandits.

I think Bourque and Plekanec can be a strong pair if they can find soimebody that clicks on the other side, obviously Gomez wasn't. Bourque has a great cap hit for a guy that averages 25+ goals a year 3.3 mil plus his last 2 years salary drops to 2.5 mil(14-15 and 15-16) so if things don't work out he is easy to move.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 12:34 PM
  #146
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stjonnypopo View Post
You're completely pointless and your opinion isn't worth anything. You're the type of guy who makes the conversations worse.

Welcome to the ignore list.
I find that conversations are worse when you don't actually read what the other person is writing and then criticize them on something they never said.

But hey, that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
This will be my last post on the topic for now.

If you are serious about building a strong team down the road including any players currently here, you can't trade everybody and hang them out to dry for 2-3 years and expect them to come out super productive and key players in 2-3-4 years.
We don't have to trade everybody.

But we should be sellers. And going out and making a lateral move that lands us a 30 year old as the principal in the trade with window dressing prospects who are borderline NHL players is not selling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
You said Cammalleri only had a year left on his contract in fact he had 2 1/2 PLUS he makes 7 mil the last 2 years, so forget about trading him to smaller markets. When you combine his cap hit, salary, 2 1/2 years left plus the level of his play this year, I think we made out like bandits.
What I said was that we could take on salary from the other team to balance it out. No problem there as long as we're getting good prospects and/or 1st round picks out of it. If it's two years left on the deal, that's fine. We can still balance it with the other team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
I think Bourque and Plekanec can be a strong pair if they can find soimebody that clicks on the other side, obviously Gomez wasn't. Bourque has a great cap hit for a guy that averages 25+ goals a year 3.3 mil plus his last 2 years salary drops to 2.5 mil(14-15 and 15-16) so if things don't work out he is easy to move.
Strong pair? Maybe as a 2nd line. Again, we are missing the top talent to compete for a cup. Bourque does nothing to address this. We keep going after mediocre 30 year olds and trying to pretend they'll lead us somewhere. It's not going to happen.

It's not the return that made this trade bad, it was the direction. We should have gone in a completely different direction here and been sellers instead of swapping for a problem child. We shouldn't have been going after a player like Bourque to begin with.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 02-01-2012 at 12:42 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 12:41 PM
  #147
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,998
vCash: 500
given Cammy's comments/behaviour, it's quite reasonable to suggest that he would have done nothing to improve his value from the time we traded him until the deadline, and quite possible that he would have eroded it even further.

the thing with waiting, even aside from wether or not Cammy's play/value would have increased or decreased, is that while it makes the "buyers" more aggressive, it also usually leads to a few more "sellers" at the table...

with 2 years and 14M$ still on his contract (not to mention 6M$ cap hit), how many teams would realistically been willing to take him on at all, let alone trade assets for him?

I guess we'll see, come deadline, what kind of market there is for scoring wingers & which teams are "buying"...



given the situation, the return we got really wasn't bad, the only issue remains that PG didn't explore all options prior to trading him, as a result no way to know if a better deal could have been had at the time.

Bourque is a nice top-9 player to have, his cap hit is reasonable and while the term is a bit long, he's likely a pretty tradeable asset (or even bury/buy-out in worst case scenario) if things really don't work out.

the 2nd is a solid asset to have, and with Calgary's stated "win at all cost" mentality (plus an aging/declining roster & weak prospect pool), there's a decent possibility they make some bad mistakes this summer with their relatively large cap space to spend, and wind up giving us a top-half 2nd rounder next year.

Holland is a solid prospect to have, like many of our other fwd prospects, a kid with great work ethic, versatility and speed... perhaps a bit redundant (given Leblanc, Palushaj, Bournival, Bourque, Naatinen...) but nonetheless a prospect whose value could very well increase over the next 3-4 years (wether he ends up playing for us or used in future trade).

all in all, not a bad move by Gauthier, even if the decision-making process getting there seems pretty flawed.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 12:50 PM
  #148
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
given Cammy's comments/behaviour, it's quite reasonable to suggest that he would have done nothing to improve his value from the time we traded him until the deadline, and quite possible that he would have eroded it even further.

the thing with waiting, even aside from wether or not Cammy's play/value would have increased or decreased, is that while it makes the "buyers" more aggressive, it also usually leads to a few more "sellers" at the table...

with 2 years and 14M$ still on his contract (not to mention 6M$ cap hit), how many teams would realistically been willing to take him on at all, let alone trade assets for him?

I guess we'll see, come deadline, what kind of market there is for scoring wingers & which teams are "buying"...



given the situation, the return we got really wasn't bad, the only issue remains that PG didn't explore all options prior to trading him, as a result no way to know if a better deal could have been had at the time.

Bourque is a nice top-9 player to have, his cap hit is reasonable and while the term is a bit long, he's likely a pretty tradeable asset (or even bury/buy-out in worst case scenario) if things really don't work out.

the 2nd is a solid asset to have, and with Calgary's stated "win at all cost" mentality (plus an aging/declining roster & weak prospect pool), there's a decent possibility they make some bad mistakes this summer with their relatively large cap space to spend, and wind up giving us a top-half 2nd rounder next year.

Holland is a solid prospect to have, like many of our other fwd prospects, a kid with great work ethic, versatility and speed... perhaps a bit redundant (given Leblanc, Palushaj, Bournival, Bourque, Naatinen...) but nonetheless a prospect whose value could very well increase over the next 3-4 years (wether he ends up playing for us or used in future trade).

all in all, not a bad move by Gauthier, even if the decision-making process getting there seems pretty flawed.
What do you mean by the decision process being flawed?

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 12:57 PM
  #149
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
What do you mean by the decision process being flawed?
Focusing on the battle instead of the war. And making a ridiculously hasty decision regarding one of our best assets.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2012, 01:13 PM
  #150
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
What do you mean by the decision process being flawed?
GM's primary role is to manage assets in a positive direction, taking what the team has in terms of assets (which actually goes beyond just players/picks...) now, and growing them.

By not making Cammy available to all teams, or at least to all potentially interested teams, he didn't gather all of the available information on the value of his asset, thus preventing him from making a decision from the strongest possible position.

even if acquiring Bourque was the main objective and he was willing to take less for Cammy just to get that specific player, by not involving other suitors, he gave himself no leverage in driving up the price.

perhaps it would have meant a minor difference, like not sending the 5th or Rammo, or getting another late pick/prospect our way in the deal, and while these types of minor assets seem insignificant at the superficial level, in the long run they add up.

gauthier has shown a history of this type of decision-making in several of his moves, and imo reflects an arrogant approach to managing the team that is and will continue to cost us.

Miller Time 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 02:55 AM.

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

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