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.
I don't understand why you attribute so much importance to Rivet. San Jose made a big mistake and overpaid by a mile. Ironically, the Sharks didn't hold on to him for long.
I don't understand why you attribute so much importance to Rivet. San Jose made a big mistake and overpaid by a mile. Ironically, the Sharks didn't hold on to him for long.
I dont attribute thats much importance to Rivet, but the difference between the playoff or not was only 1 point, probably 1 goal in a losing games.
Losing Rivet mean more ice time to Janne Niinimaa, Niinimaa was -5 over the 10 games he played after the trade (1 assist). I dont think rivet was that bad.
(Niinima played more than gorges after the trade.)
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...
How about injecting some facts into this argument? Souray, who you claim they "had little intention of re-signing" and they "basically made no serious attempt to do so post-season" was offered a four year $22 million deal that he refused and a five year $25 million contract from the Canadiens that he didn't respond to for a couple of days. When Souray stalled, the Canadiens made a similar offer to Roman Hamrlik instead. (Four years, $22 million)
If you think a five year $25 million offer is not a serious attempt to re-sign him, I think you're living in a fantasy land. If you think this offer wasn't a serious attempt, it would seem Sheldon himself would disagree with you because he ultimately signed for just $2 million more, inking a five year $27 million deal with Edmonton.
This trade is the best trade the Habs made in the last 20 years for **** sakes!!! It is unfortunate that they weren't able to make a similiar trade for Souray at the time.
If they don't make this deal sure they may have made the playoffs but they would have been out in the first round anyways. And they wouldn't have Gorges and Pacioretty now.
All montreal had to do was win the last game, and it looked like they were well on their way to doing so, but they choked the lead after getting into penalty trouble.
There was controversy on who should start the game because huet was just coming off injury but he was still the #1 guy. Some people think halak should have started.
I dont think anyone said the habs missed the playoffs because rivet wasn't around. Anyways, for the package that gainey received, you just couldn't say no to that.
I wouldn't go trading key assets like Plekanec or Cole or other guys who I think can make a big difference in whether we get back into the playoff race or not. But recognizing the odds, the free agent status of a few other lesser guys, I think it would be a low-risk proposition to move Gill and Moen. I think that they, like Rivet, *could* offer serious value to a playoff team, and make more of a difference once _in_ the playoffs than they do in terms of generating a late-season surge to compete for a playoff spot. If the deadline trade market was such that I could parlay that into some futures assets for us, I'd be ready to do it.
I guess this means you are against re-signing Moen, too?
Personally, I thought he was overpaid the last two seasons, but with salary inflation, I would re-sign him today if he would go for the same price. But will he? Or will someone pay significantly more for him for the next few years?
I, too, am ok with trading Gill and Campoli, and Moen as well if the team has decided not to re-sign him. I would try hard to re-sign AK46, even taking the chance to go into the off-season with it, given his recent remarks about wanting to stay for a reasonable price.
Cole and Plekanec would not be on the market, though what GM would not listen to crazy-high offers if they ever got one.
I think trading Cammalleri was a mistake, by the way. At only 29 and with his ability to score goals, I would not have panicked and traded him.
The Habs made off like bandits in that trade. Not only did we get Gorges, who at the time was already a better defencemen that Rivet, but we also got a 1st round pick that turned out to be Pacioretty.
One of the best trades for the Habs in the last 20 years!!
The day the trade happened....I was pumped and told many people on here (with my old profile) that Gorges would be a huge part of the Habs future. A lot of people said I was an idiot and that Rivet was much better and should have kept him. Its nice to see that my instincts were right.
I dont attribute thats much importance to Rivet, but the difference between the playoff or not was only 1 point, probably 1 goal in a losing games.
Losing Rivet mean more ice time to Janne Niinimaa, Niinimaa was -5 over the 10 games he played after the trade (1 assist). I dont think rivet was that bad.
(Niinima played more than gorges after the trade.)
Niinimaa was much better than Rivet was!! Janne didn't get the icetime he deserved that season....when he did get a chance to play more, his game improved a lot....his stats might not have agreed, but he made better choices and plays on the ice.
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 trading Rivet for future asset instead of trading Rivet+ for a short term D upgrade cost us the playoff. (Losing Rivet mean more ice time to Janne Niinimaa, Niinimaa was -5 over the 10 games he played after the trade (1 assist).) (Seller vs Buyer)
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.
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.
Edit: I modified this post express more clearly my initial intention. And remove a mistake i made about the draft order.
I think NOT trading Souray for assets was a way worst mistake than trading Rivet, which was nopt a diffrence maker, anyway.
I guess this means you are against re-signing Moen, too?
Personally, I thought he was overpaid the last two seasons, but with salary inflation, I would re-sign him today if he would go for the same price. But will he? Or will someone pay significantly more for him for the next few years?
I, too, am ok with trading Gill and Campoli, and Moen as well if the team has decided not to re-sign him. I would try hard to re-sign AK46, even taking the chance to go into the off-season with it, given his recent remarks about wanting to stay for a reasonable price.
Cole and Plekanec would not be on the market, though what GM would not listen to crazy-high offers if they ever got one.
I think trading Cammalleri was a mistake, by the way. At only 29 and with his ability to score goals, I would not have panicked and traded him.
No way ! overpaid, scared, selfish player. That's it.
Pacioretty is our Bobby Ryan, and I must say it's much cheaper to sell an aging asset early and then draft your own talent than to make a blockbuster trade for the real Bobby Ryan/Jeff Carter.
Our second round pick from the Cammalleri trade will net similar returns and the hissers will shut up...again.
Niinimaa was much better than Rivet was!! Janne didn't get the icetime he deserved that season....when he did get a chance to play more, his game improved a lot....his stats might not have agreed, but he made better choices and plays on the ice.
You are entitled to your opinion, but i guess the 30 GM disagreed with you. Niinimaa is younger than Rivet, but he played his last career game in montreal in 2007, no GM ever gave him an NHL contract again.
At the same time rivet played 4 more seasons in the NHL.
I dont see how a ''much better'' player than rivet didnt get a NHL contract ever again.
How about injecting some facts into this argument? Souray, who you claim they "had little intention of re-signing" and they "basically made no serious attempt to do so post-season" was offered a four year $22 million deal that he refused and a five year $25 million contract from the Canadiens that he didn't respond to for a couple of days. When Souray stalled, the Canadiens made a similar offer to Roman Hamrlik instead. (Four years, $22 million)
If you think a five year $25 million offer is not a serious attempt to re-sign him, I think you're living in a fantasy land. If you think this offer wasn't a serious attempt, it would seem Sheldon himself would disagree with you because he ultimately signed for just $2 million more, inking a five year $27 million deal with Edmonton.
“I always thought the Canadiens would make it a priority to sign me, and I was hoping and thinking that they’d make a real attempt to keep me. But for whatever reason, they decided that wasn’t the case until it became way too late.” – Sheldon Souray
Fact- gainey's no negociation approach backfired on more than one occasion
Fact- when you let people twist in the wind, they assume, rightly or wrongly, that you aren't that interested... Especially high achieves with big egos, which pro athletes are
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.
Not really. Rivet was considered a bottom pairing dman who wouldn't have much of an impact for us. Souray was our team mvp. Dumping Rivet in 07 while battling for a playoff spot would be like us dumping Campoli this year if we were battling for a playoff spot.
Not really. Rivet was considered a bottom pairing dman who wouldn't have much of an impact for us. Souray was our team mvp. Dumping Rivet in 07 while battling for a playoff spot would be like us dumping Campoli this year if we were battling for a playoff spot.
How do you define bottom pairing Dman?
In 2007 Rivet was 3th in ice time behind Markov and Souray. He was playing significantly more (21.38 minute per game) than Komisarek (19.15), Bouillon (18.18), Streit (14.00) and Niinimaa (14.50).
Campoli this year played 17 games and play less minutes per games than any defenseman except Weber and St-Denis.
i dont see how they compare. In the 2007 playoff, Rivet was SJ top defenseman. playing 25.18 minute per games, significantly more than any other SJ defensemen.
“I always thought the Canadiens would make it a priority to sign me, and I was hoping and thinking that they’d make a real attempt to keep me. But for whatever reason, they decided that wasn’t the case until it became way too late.” – Sheldon Souray
Fact- gainey's no negociation approach backfired on more than one occasion
Fact- when you let people twist in the wind, they assume, rightly or wrongly, that you aren't that interested... Especially high achieves with big egos, which pro athletes are
Fact: you picked a horrible example. Souray ended up getting overpaid and his play nosedived after leaving Montreal. Maybe Gainey was right...
I will assume that with Rivet we would have made the play-offs. So the question to me is whether Id have rather been in the play-offs, as the 8th seed playing against the top team in the conference, or whether Id prefer to have Gorges and Patches, two core players for this team. No hesitation I do the trade. If keeping Rivet would have been the difference between a real run at the Cup and having these 2 players then I keep Rivet, but thats my threshold. I mean, we got 2 terrific players for a top 4 D-man in decline ( and I liked Rivet by the way...loved his comment desribing Habs fans..what have you done for me now.. priceless and pretty accurate.)
I will assume that with Rivet we would have made the play-offs. So the question to me is whether Id have rather been in the play-offs, as the 8th seed playing against the top team in the conference, or whether Id prefer to have Gorges and Patches, two core players for this team. No hesitation I do the trade. If keeping Rivet would have been the difference between a real run at the Cup and having these 2 players then I keep Rivet, but thats my threshold. I mean, we got 2 terrific players for a top 4 D-man in decline ( and I liked Rivet by the way...loved his comment desribing Habs fans..what have you done for me now.. priceless and pretty accurate.)
So i take it we should definitely be seller this year if the offer are right for our players, even if we are getting closer to a playoff spot near the deadline?
