HFBoards

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

Trading Rivet cost us a playoff spot in 2007, would you still make the trade?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2012, 09:02 AM
  #26
Schooner Guy
Registered User
 
Schooner Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
habs traded a vet, without replacing him, for futures, during a tight race for the playoffs, ultimately falling short by just 1 point.

The return was such that, especially in hindsight, it's very easy to rationalize that it was worth it.
But it's funny to see some of the same posters who passionately argue against so-called "tanking" trip over themselves to pretend that rivet's loss had no impact on such a tight PO race...


For me, no problem with the trade, but at the time and certainly in hindsight, I think it showed a serious lack of plan/vision/sense to make that trade and then not actively/aggressively shop Souray, whom they clearly had little intention to re-sign, making basically no serious attempt to do so post-season.
Hallmark of gainey's tenure IMO...
Riiiiiiiiiight....and it had nothing to do with the fact that Souray was a much more important player that season versus Rivet (our offense lived on the PP). Or it had nothing to do with the Sharks willing to overpay for an experienced right-shooting Dman. Also, we don't know what offers the Habs were getting for Souray. Gainey probably figured he couldn't resist the offer for Rivet and figured it would be the damaging deal in terms of affecting the Habs chances at a playoff spot. And let's not even mention that there were problems between Carbo and Rivet at the time or that Rivet spoke out publicly about being a healthy scratch.

Let's ignore all of the above because in your world everything is black and white. Either you go all out for the playoffs or you go all out for the tank. Too bad the real world just isn't that simple.

Schooner Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:02 AM
  #27
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Wether Rivet really made us miss the playoffs or not as the OP suggests is irrelevant. He seemingly only wanted a good example of the true question :

Would you sacrifice the playoffs by selling players in other to acquire futures?

I think if the timing is right and the return is great it is a good idea. Teams need to acquire value from time to time to become better and sending future UFA and players on the decline for picks and younger guys with upside is one of the best ways. The others are acquiring UFAs (difficult to get good bang for the buck players this way) and great drafting.

Of course systematically trading all veterans every year is not a good idea but the last time we did it was when we traded Rivet and it was great for us. Today Gorges and Pacioretty are two of our most valuable players.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:07 AM
  #28
Captain Saku
Registered User
 
Captain Saku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 10,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
At the 2007 deadline Montreal traded Craig Rivet to San Jose for Josh Gorges + a 1st (who become Pacioretty).

As Montreal finished the season 1 point out of the playoff, we can assume this trade cost us a playoff participation.

At the same time it was a required overpayment by San Jose required in order to convince a team fighting for the playoff to give up an asset.

Of course the canadiens got ''lucky'' to get a Pacioretty out of the 22th draft pick. If SJ had made another round of playoff in 2007, the first choice they traded could have been somewhere between the 27-30


So if we go back to the past, do you still made that trade if we take for granted it cost us the playoff, Gorges become Gorges, but we replace Pacioretty for an average late draft pick lotery ticket.
You won't get a fair answer here because:

1) It's impossible to prove we would have made the playoffs with Rivet

2) Rivet sucked that year with us, although he was on fire with the Sharks

3) In general people tend here to **** on habs ex-players and praise/overrate our current players

That being said, yes I would still have made the trade. Wouldn't the Flames have still made the Nieuwendyk - Iginla trade?

But if you go to the sharks board and ask the same question, you would get the same answer because Rivet was that good for them.

Captain Saku is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:21 AM
  #29
JohnnyB11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saint John, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
I think the answer to the question (as I see the question at least - I agree that you can't make the assumption that trading Rivet cost the Habs a playoff spot lol), is that when you are a team on the bubble it depends on the offers you are getting. If the offers are low-ball, don't sell. If the offers are overpayments like this one really was, I think you have to take the deal. Of course Souraywas brought into the discussion, but along the same lines as above I think that had the Habs received an offer that was a clear overpayment they probably would have pulled the triger on dealing Souray too. It could be that the offers were low-ball enough to convince the Habs to hang on to him. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

So, for the current Habs, it's still a bit too early to write them off (although I know many have) but as we get closer to deadline if they are on the bubble I expect any deal they make they should get a better than average return, otherwise hang on to what they've got.

JohnnyB11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:24 AM
  #30
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schooner Guy View Post
. Also, we don't know what offers the Habs were getting for Souray. Gainey probably figured he couldn't resist the offer for Rivet and figured it would be the damaging deal in terms of affecting the Habs chances at a playoff spot. .
A- why bother responding to posts you clearly haven't read and/or understood

B- hard to argue against speculation by using your own speculation

One foot in one foot out is a bad way of managing IMO. That's the only point I'm making.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:27 AM
  #31
RE-HABS
Registered User
 
RE-HABS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
At the 2007 deadline Montreal traded Craig Rivet to San Jose for Josh Gorges + a 1st (who become Pacioretty).

As Montreal finished the season 1 point out of the playoff, we can assume this trade cost us a playoff participation.

At the same time it was a required overpayment by San Jose required in order to convince a team fighting for the playoff to give up an asset.

Of course the canadiens got ''lucky'' to get a Pacioretty out of the 22th draft pick. If SJ had made another round of playoff in 2007, the first choice they traded could have been somewhere between the 27-30


So if we go back to the past, do you still made that trade if we take for granted it cost us the playoff, Gorges become Gorges, but we replace Pacioretty for an average late draft pick lotery ticket.
Rivet was a scratch in a lot of games that year, and plus his game was heading towards the end of his career.

And to say Pacioretty was a lucky pick, I guess Timmins was lucky with McDonagh before that pick, and Subban after too that year?

If I was offered that deal 10 times, I would accept it 10 times!

Look at what Pacioretty is, a potential 30 goal scorer this year and power forward. Gorges the throw in became a top 4 DMan, leader and one of the best defensive Dmen in the league for shot blocks and his PK kill has become great under Gill's influence.

RE-HABS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:28 AM
  #32
habfaninvictoria
Registered User
 
habfaninvictoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
I love revisionist history, particularly when the historian forgets major events.

We weren't in tank mode, got great value in return, even if I didn't know how Gorges and Rivet turned out I'd do it in heartbeat.

habfaninvictoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:30 AM
  #33
MrNasty
Registered User
 
MrNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
Rivet was a healthy scratch for a game about a week before he was traded and took a hissy fit. That is mainly why he was traded. Gainey didn't need that distraction during a playoff run.

It is a sellers market right now...I hope Gauts sells.

MrNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:35 AM
  #34
Uber Coca
Registered User
 
Uber Coca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,098
vCash: 500
The logic in this thread is a headscratcher.

Uber Coca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:36 AM
  #35
Trexim
Registered User
 
Trexim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
In 2007, the difference between the playoff or not was 1 point in the ranking. (it could be one goal more or less in one single game).

I think rivet alone was enough to be this difference maker.
He was a healthy scratch several games before the trade.

Trexim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:36 AM
  #36
ReVeuF
Registered User
 
ReVeuF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
In 2007, the difference between the playoff or not was 1 point in the ranking. (it could be one goal more or less in one single game).

I think rivet alone was enough to be this difference maker.
Totally disagree, Rivet was not good, I never liked his play defensively and even more offensively, he was a liability !

There is a reason why Rivet was in the pressbox for a few games, he was a cancer in the locker room and was not playing well also !

ReVeuF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 09:49 AM
  #37
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,394
vCash: 500
The only thing the Rivet trade cost us is the 1st place in the "% of slappers on the shipads" statistical category. I NEVER, EVER saw a guy hitting the shinpads so much.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 10:08 AM
  #38
pine
Registered User
 
pine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,844
vCash: 50
To think that we got Gorges and a 1st (Pacioretty) for this guy...

pine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 10:57 AM
  #39
Aurel Joliat
Registered User
 
Aurel Joliat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 500
In 2007, we did not trade Souray, we missed the playoffs and he signed in Edmonton during the summer. That's the real question...

Another pathetic decison

Aurel Joliat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:01 AM
  #40
Undertakerqc
Registered User
 
Undertakerqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
The Rivet trade did not cost us the playoff. And i would do this trade anytime. The only good thing Bog Gainey did has a GM. The rest of his tenure was a disaster

Undertakerqc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:01 AM
  #41
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,370
vCash: 500
If the point of this thread is actually "should the Habs trade a vet for picks and prospects?" than the answer is an unequivocal, resounding YES!
We will not be making the playoffs so any assets we can get from other teams will and can only help us going forward. Worse comes to worse you can flip those picks while trying to trade for a better player. It's not only the smart thing to do, it's a must.

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:19 AM
  #42
mlandry
Registered User
 
mlandry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
I hated Rivet every single moment I watched him play on the Habs. Would re-do the trade any time because I think he was a detriment to our team everytime he was on the ice.

mlandry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:25 AM
  #43
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
habs traded a vet, without replacing him, for futures, during a tight race for the playoffs, ultimately falling short by just 1 point.

The return was such that, especially in hindsight, it's very easy to rationalize that it was worth it.
But it's funny to see some of the same posters who passionately argue against so-called "tanking" trip over themselves to pretend that rivet's loss had no impact on such a tight PO race...
Entirely different than the tanking debate.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:29 AM
  #44
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
One foot in one foot out is a bad way of managing IMO. That's the only point I'm making.
I think the poster you're responding to, while disrespectful, actually acknowledged this 'one foot in one foot out' claim of yours in his post by asserting that the world is not black and white. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of teams--and particularly the successful ones--do indeed have this 'one foot in, one foot out.' More specifically: they look to win now with an eye on team-building and the future.

This trade of Rivet increased the franchise's assets in the short and long-term (since Rivet was on his way out, given his position with the coaching staff at the time), while being a good general team-building move.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:33 AM
  #45
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
As i say above, i just dont believe SJ would pay a first to upgrade Gorge to a borderline healthy scratch. If anything Rivet was probably underrated by fans at the time.
This is not intended to attack you as a fan or as a poster, but were you following the club at that point? Rivet actually was scratched. So you can refuse to believe all you want, but that is a fact.

As far as his being underrated by fans: maybe. I always liked him, though. But he had a tough year and the coaching staff didn't appreciate him nor use him to his strengths, so he was largely irrelevant to the club.

And this is why you've got a faulty premise here. As far as I can tell, you wanted to use the Rivet deal as a jumping-off point to discuss the logic in dealing vets at the deadline in the midst of a playoff race. However, as you can see now, Rivet was wholly inconsequential to Montreal's playoff race and, as such, Montreal management was entirely right to make this move even if their intent was to make the playoffs.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:34 AM
  #46
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,616
vCash: 500
People are being rather harsh with the OP, in my opinion.

I believe his intention was good and that he is trying to make us reflect on offers we will surely get for players such as Gill and Moen. Our playoff hopes this season are even more grim than they we're in 2007 in my eyes.

If we can get a 2nd round pick or more for either of these players I say trade them, especially Gill. Moen I would try to maximise the return as much as possible given the fact I believe he fits the mould of what this team should look like moving forward. Big, hard-working, responsible defensively. He's a natural fit for ours or any team's bottom 6.

Ideally perhaps we move Moen in a package that includes a younger player with potential that isn't quite working here (say Weber?) for a 1st. Or we look at getting a 2nd and another young player that isn't working as planned for the other team, like a project swap.

I believe Markov returning and Gill being traded would be an addition by substraction (in essence) and White can replace a lot of what Moen brings when he does return (although I'd rather have more of both and less of Darche/Noke/Engvist types).

As for trading a guy like Andrei K, I'd want no part of it unless we are getting minimum a 1st round pick. Highly unlikely IMO. The only other option I'd consider is if we got Radulov's rights for him from Nashville (providing we know Radulov will come over).

JGRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:40 AM
  #47
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
I'd make that trade every day for the rest of my life.

Our best trade in a long time.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 11:54 AM
  #48
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGRB View Post
People are being rather harsh with the OP, in my opinion.
Yes, but i can see the reason why, i didn't express my premise well enough and its kinda late to change it.

i guess they could at least agree that trading Rivet for future instead of trading rivet + 1st for immediate help on the defense cost us the playoff.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 12:00 PM
  #49
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
By the same token, you might as well ask, since we did in fact miss the playoffs, should the team have traded a lot more players than just Rivet?

Hindsight is 20-20. That Gorges+Pax >>>> than Rivet is pretty much a fact. The hopes we had that year for Christobal Huet on the other hand, turned out to be mostly illusion. I think it's cherry picking to look at that 1 point say Rivet makes us make the playoffs. Rivet was terrible that year. One injury, one flu bug even, could've made more than 1 point difference.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 12:01 PM
  #50
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,349
vCash: 500
Rivet was playing really well in 2007. Probably the best season of his career. There's a reason why he fetched a first round pick (there's also the fact that the draft was considered weak).

I don't think it's crazy to think that Rivet could have helped the team win one game, not because he was that great of a player, but because out of all the games following the draft, I'm sure there was at least one really tight game that was lost due to defensive depth.

Losing Rivet is one thing, but the worst part is having to play a crappy defenseman more. That's what really hurt this team in the long run.

That said - If losing Rivet meant not making the playoffs, I'm glad that we got a good return out of it because it clearly means this team wasn't going to go really far in the playoffs.

Gabe84 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 02:09 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.