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, 03:04 PM
  #76
poetryinmotion
Registered User
 
poetryinmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
We still made 2 first round upset against Boston in the recent years.

Yes, usually the 8th seed exit in first round, but its not an automatic.
I admire your optimism but that team was not a contender, so there is no point, unless you are GGjr and want more revenue. Ottawa and Buffalo were destined to meet in the ECF and the NYI who made the PO's instead of us only managed to take one game from Buffalo with a much better team on paper.

I dare you to go on NHL.com and look at the rosters of Ottawa/Buffalo and tell me with a straight face that there was a snowball's chance in hell we would make it to the Cup finals.

It's like that every time for us, we always just hope to get lucky and have a cinderella run but we never want to be that team that is actually considered contenders.

poetryinmotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 03:09 PM
  #77
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,215
vCash: 500
Was that not the same team that was completly reliant on Souray? Ya they didn't belong anywhere near the playoffs so no I don't miss those 4 games we would have lost. If anything Souray should have been traded aswell but some ******* was much happier to let him walk for nothing.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 03:16 PM
  #78
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by poetryinmotion View Post
I admire your optimism but that team was not a contender, so there is no point, unless you are GGjr and want more revenue. Ottawa and Buffalo were destined to meet in the ECF and the NYI who made the PO's instead of us only managed to take one game from Buffalo with a much better team on paper.

I dare you to go on NHL.com and look at the rosters of Ottawa/Buffalo and tell me with a straight face that there was a snowball's chance in hell we would make it to the Cup finals.

It's like that every time for us, we always just hope to get lucky and have a cinderella run but we never want to be that team that is actually considered contenders.
Im just giving material for a deeper discussion by offering a counter point of view. And you know, it work!, Your second reply is an appreciated good read.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 03:21 PM
  #79
poetryinmotion
Registered User
 
poetryinmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Im just giving material for a deeper discussion by offering a counter point of view. And you know, it work!, Your second reply is an appreciated good read.
Well, thanks. You're not trolling and I think it's a pretty interesting discussion, one that touches on team philosophy and vision... or lack thereof.

poetryinmotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 03:51 PM
  #80
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
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?
In terms of the longer term, I like AK and perhaps Moen to be part of the team so these are players I would look at trying to re-sign before the deadline and only failing that, then trading them. Anyway, typically and I know thats a generality, you need about 95-96 points to snag 8th. Say its 93 this year, wed have to go 20-7 to get in, that seems like wishful thinking. If we did get in , I know anything is possible like our run a couple of years ago, but playing the odds and reality, we dont make a Cup run this tear. I want a contender to be in it year after year for a while, not cinderella hopes. So yes, Id sell.

yianik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 03:58 PM
  #81
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
First of all, I don't even think it's possible to connect a single roster move with a specific number of points (if any) in the standings. One day a goalie may have played with a cold. Maybe another day a possible tying goal rang off the post instead of going in. Any one of a thousand things could contribute to losing 2 "measly" points by the end of a season when the points are totalled.

One thing is for sure, though: if you can trade a Rivet for a Gorges and a Pacioretty, you do it EVERY time.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:11 PM
  #82
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
First of all, I don't even think it's possible to connect a single roster move with a specific number of points (if any) in the standings. One day a goalie may have played with a cold. Maybe another day a possible tying goal rang off the post instead of going in. Any one of a thousand things could contribute to losing 2 "measly" points by the end of a season when the points are totalled.

One thing is for sure, though: if you can trade a Rivet for a Gorges and a Pacioretty, you do it EVERY time.
This, there's no way of knowing... maybe if we were talking about an elite forward or defense... but even then...

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:17 PM
  #83
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
First of all, I don't even think it's possible to connect a single roster move with a specific number of points (if any) in the standings.

Why would a team pay a fortune to acquire any player at the deadline if there are no expected positive correlation between acquiring the player and the number of points in the standing? If a team acquire a player to help them make the playoff, its because they expect this player will make a difference in the final number of point in the standing.

There is definitely a correlation between upgrading/downgrading a lineup and the number of point in the final standing.

Of course its not possible to figure out the exact impact in in term of number of point and the expected result doesnt always meet the final result. But its possible to make an approximation of the expected range of point.

We could use stats covering every deadline trade in history. And see the general impact in term of points before and after the trade on buyer/seller team. We can also categorize them according to the kind of player that was traded.

In that case, i believe the positive impact to have Rivet over Gorges/Niinimaa was at least one point in the standing. SJ surely believed so and that's why they was ready to give us Gorges + a 1st for Rivet.


Last edited by palindrom: 02-11-2012 at 04:23 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:23 PM
  #84
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Why would a team pay a fortune to acquire any player at the deadline if there are no expected positive correlation between acquiring the player and the number of points in the standing?

There is definitely a correlation between upgrading/downgrading a lineup and the number of point in the final standing. If there was not, no team would ever make a trade with the intention to improve their team.

Of course its not possible to figure out the exact impact in in term of number of point, but its possible to make an approximation of the expected range of point.

We could use stats covering every deadline trade in history. And see the general impact in term of points before and after the trade on buyer/seller team. We can also categorize them according to the kind of player that was traded.

In that case, i believe the positive impact to have Rivet over Gorges/Niinimaa was at least one point in the standing. SJ surely believed so and that's why they was ready to give us Gorges + a 1st for Rivet.
Why would a team in a PO run get rid of a player if there was a correlation...


exatly -> believing... that's all there is, no data, no facts, just believing...

and for all we know, trading Rivet sooner may have given us more pts in the standing, I mean... who's to say Ninimaa or Gorges doesnt get an asst or the goal to tie a game late in the third, you know, a game we lost while Rivet was with us...

or is it that impossible cause SJ paid a hefty price ? that's how you value all this ?


what to think of the Kessel trade for TO then, they paid a lot for him, and so far... well...

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:26 PM
  #85
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Why would a team in a PO run get rid of a player if there was a correlation...
Because they believe the future asset they get for this player worth more than the impact of this player for the present season.
This is still a question of opinion and it is the topic of the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
I mean... who's to say Ninimaa or Gorges doesnt get an asst or the goal to tie a game late in the third, you know, a game we lost while Rivet was with us...
Its all about the expected odds.

Who is to say a lottery ticket is not the winner one?

Its going by that logic that millions of people lost money every wear in the lottery and Casino.

Considering that Niinimaa never played in the NHL again and Gorges was still an inexperimented defenseman who didnt see a lot of ice time with the Canadiens that season. The expected odds at the time was that Rivet had a more positive impact on a team than Gorges or Niinimaa.

To make it an extreme example: The expected odds are that a team will do better in the ranking with a Malkin than a Leblanc, but who is to say Lblanc wont put more point than Malkin until the end the season and lead the Canadien to the cup?

I believe that Malkin will have a greater impact than Leblanc until the end of the season, but thats all there is, no data, no facts, just believing.


Last edited by palindrom: 02-11-2012 at 05:00 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:38 PM
  #86
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
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.)
That's a lot of moldy poutine. The Habs might have lost even more games if they had held on to Rivet. The Sharks were disappointed with that trade and didn't hold on to Rivet for very long. The Habs were very pleased.

Other posters have alluded to the Souuray non-trade. At the time I thought the Habs needed him to be able to make the playoffs. Events proved me wrong, they should have traded him too. But how was I to know?

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:45 PM
  #87
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
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?
No, I think I've said in numerous threads that my preference had been to re-sign Moen too, just as you have. Pretty much the same opinion of him as you... first couple years I'm not sure he was worth the premium. This year he has been. And since it's his best year, conveniently at UFA time, and since we can use his size and bottom-6 reliability I wouldn't object to a small raise. $1.75M/yr for 3 has been my standard offer. But that was like a month ago. And as we get closer to the deadline, I'm more resigned to the fact that (for whatever reason - Moen or the team not being interested in negotiating) there isn't going to be a new contract before the deadline. I wouldn't wait on the chance of signing him before July 1st if there is a 2nd rounder or better on the trade market. (Same time, Moen hasn't been quite as good lately as he was earlier in the season either).

Quote:
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.
I'm for waiting on AK too. It would be preferable to try to do something with a new contract now, however, and if the team isn't trying, I don't understand why not. I think AK can get hot and play a much bigger role in helping our team go on a mini-run towards making the playoffs than Moen or Gill could too. That's worth the risk of waiting to try to re-sign him after the deadline and before July 1st.
Quote:
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.
I dunno on that one anymore. I was marginally against the trade, but Cammalleri still seems to be sucking, and I don't want to be stuck in another Gomez situation, if it comes to that. I'm now of the opinion that it will depend on how the team uses its cap savings. If the $3M saved seems to be invested intelligently in the summer towards making the team better, and if Bourque manages to basically come within some arguable stretch of being as good as Cammalleri is (present tenses), then it will be a good trade. (Of course, it will probably be hard to separate out exactly where that $3M goes, but we'll try, we always do! ).

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:46 PM
  #88
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
That's a lot of moldy poutine. The Habs might have lost even more games if they had held on to Rivet. The Sharks were disappointed with that trade and didn't hold on to Rivet for very long. The Habs were very pleased.

Other posters have alluded to the Souuray non-trade. At the time I thought the Habs needed him to be able to make the playoffs. Events proved me wrong, they should have traded him too. But how was I to know?
The shark gave Rivet more than 25 minutes per game as their #01 defenseman in the playoff. They still managed to trade rivet one year later for 2 x Second round to Buffalo.

Niinimaa never played in the NHL again.

Im not using my own judgment here, im using the historical judgement of actual GM and coach who put a greater value and gave greater NHL role to Rivet than Niinimaa.
I just dont feel qualified enough to contradict them and think Montreal was a greater team with Niinimaa than Rivet.


Last edited by palindrom: 02-11-2012 at 04:52 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:48 PM
  #89
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
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 often do you see teams battling for a playoff spot dumping even bottom pairing dmen?

and Rivet, while he was struggling at the time of the trade, wasn't a comparable to Campoli, unless you think Campoli will leave montreal and get signed to a 4 year-14M$ deal, then later be named Captain of his next team in the near future, as Rivet was in BUffalo...

terrible comparison.

and beyond that, teams with playoff aspirations go out and add bottom-pairing dmen, they don't trade away their depth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrNasty View Post
Fact: you picked a horrible example. Souray ended up getting overpaid and his play nosedived after leaving Montreal. Maybe Gainey was right...
2008-09 Edmonton Oilers NHL 81 23 30 53 98

but hey, why let the reality get in the way of a "good" argument

Souray's career "nosedived" due to injuries and a combination of mismanagement/big ego's conflicting (including his).


besides, the issue/error Gainey made wasn't deciding not to keep souray, it was waiting far too long to decide wether he wanted him or not... thereby ensuring he'd lose him for nothing. then trying to sign him once the player had mentally committed to testing the market (because of the teams reluctance to show clear desire to keep him, despite 7 years with the franchise and a career best year).

trading Rivet was fine, not replacing him or otherwise bolstering the team to try to make the playoffs AND hanging on to an incredibly valuable commodity until he was lost for nothing, was stupid (or poor asset management if "stupid" seems to harsh)

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:56 PM
  #90
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Because they believe the future asset they get for this player worth more than the impact of this player for the present season.
This is still a question of opinion and it is the topic of the thread.



Its all about the expected odds.

Who is to say a lottery ticket is not the winner one?

Its going by that logic that millions of people lost money every wear in the lottery and Casino.

Considering that Niinimaa never played in the NHL again and Gorges was still an inexperimented defenseman who didnt see a lot of ice time with the Canadiens that season. The expected odds at the time was that Rivet had a more positive impact on a team than Gorges or Niinimaa.

The make it an extreme example: The expected odds are that a team will do better in the ranking with a Malkin than a Enquvist, but who is to say Enqvist wont put more point than Malkin until the end the season and lead the Canadien to the cup?

I believe that Malkin have a greater impact than Enqvist, but thats all there is, no data, no facts, just believeing.
Thats the odds... but everyone who watched the game know Rivet was god damn bad that year.

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:57 PM
  #91
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
The shark gave Rivet more than 25 minutes per game as their #01 defenseman in the playoff. They still managed to trade rivet one year later for 2 x Second round to Buffalo.

Niinimaa never played in the NHL again.

Im not using my own judgment here, im using the historical judgement of actual GM and coach who put a greater value and gave greater NHL role to Rivet than Niinimaa.
I just dont feel qualified enough to contradict them and think Montreal was a greater team with Niinimaa than Rivet.
but you're qualified enough to contradict the Habs GM move ? ? ?

ECWHSWI is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 04:59 PM
  #92
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
The shark gave Rivet more than 25 minutes per game as their #01 defenseman in the playoff. They still managed to trade rivet one year later for 2 x Second round to Buffalo.

Niinimaa never played in the NHL again.

Im not using my own judgment here, im using the historical judgement of actual GM and coach who put a greater value and gave greater NHL role to Rivet than Niinimaa.
I just dont feel qualified enough to contradict them and think Montreal was a greater team with Niinimaa than Rivet.
Don't throw in Niinimaa as a red herring. Wouldn't the Habs still have had Niinimma if they had retained Rivet? Besides, it wasn't Niinimaa who took the critical penalty thst gave the Leafs life. It wasted Ryder's natural hat trick, as I recall.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:04 PM
  #93
The Gal Pals
Breaking Hab
 
The Gal Pals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,828
vCash: 1549
Craig Rivet was overpaid and was terrible defensively. He was hugely overrated and that's the only reason we got what we got for him. I firmly believe the team was better off without him. Therefore, I make that trade every single time because that trade was NOT the reason we failed to make the playoffs that yr.

I couldn't believe the Sabres later made him captain. But the fact that he was later a regular scratch from their lineup even as a captain is a testament to what I'm talking about.

The Gal Pals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:06 PM
  #94
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Don't throw in Niinimaa as a red herring. Wouldn't the Habs still have had Niinimma if they had retained Rivet? Besides, it wasn't Niinimaa who took the critical penalty thst gave the Leafs life.
Yes but Niinimaa saw his role increased with the departure of Rivet.
With a -5 in 10 games its hard to believe rivet could had done worse.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:14 PM
  #95
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,082
vCash: 500
Loll, people want's to undo (maybe) the best trade in the century(For us)

Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:17 PM
  #96
BoNeS42
Registered User
 
BoNeS42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb1p View Post
Loll, people want's to undo (maybe) the best trade in the century(For us)
The only thing Rivet was good at was passing the puck during the pre-game warmup.

BoNeS42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:23 PM
  #97
poetryinmotion
Registered User
 
poetryinmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrb1p View Post
Loll, people want's to undo (maybe) the best trade in the century(For us)
That's really not what this is about...

Here I will make it more clear for you. IF the Rivet trade truly cost us the playoffs, in hindsight, knowing how the pick and Gorges turned out, would you have done the trade still?

There, I hope that will eliminate some of the pointless arguing around here about if it truly cost us the p/o's or not because there is no real way of proving it did or didn't and the OP has even stated so.

poetryinmotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:24 PM
  #98
Varlan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 768
vCash: 500
Rivet was terrible all round. We used to call him rubber wrist because he absolutely could not clear the zone on his weak clearing attempts, they just winded up being passes to the point. Getting rid of him helped the habs not hindered. Getting a good return for him at all was a bonus.

Varlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  #99
poetryinmotion
Registered User
 
poetryinmotion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varlan View Post
Rivet was terrible all round. We used to call him rubber wrist because he absolutely could not clear the zone on his weak clearing attempts, they just winded up being passes to the point. Getting rid of him helped the habs not hindered. Getting a good return for him at all was a bonus.
I remember those all too well. But I think he also had to go because his head was becoming too inflated. Also he was part of that old boys club with Koivu, Souray and co. But he was mostly terrible. Good grit though.

poetryinmotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2012, 05:43 PM
  #100
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,562
vCash: 500
I just wish we would've tried to get Bobby Ryan from Anaheim. Koivu and Souray I think for sure would've got it done. The problem wasn't giving away Rivet, the problem was that we didn't trade away enough. When Huet went down that should've been it. We should've been sellers at the deadline (just like we should be sellers now) and gotten what we could. We would've wound up with more prospects and a higher pick that year.

Same situation now.

Lafleurs Guy 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 10:51 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.