HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Out of Town Thread part XXXIII (All non Habs related news here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-05-2012, 03:26 PM
  #976
Habs 4 Life
No Excuses
 
Habs 4 Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Italy
Posts: 33,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
We didn't trade Cammy for Bourque.

We traded Cammy for Bourque, a 2nd rounder and extra cap space.
Pierre Gauthier isn't that smart cause if he was he wouldn't have traded for Kaberle

Habs 4 Life is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 03:26 PM
  #977
uocooco
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
And you're completely missing the point. A trade for a 2nd rounder and Holland would've been a better deal.

Bourque is stinking up the place.
Bourque can be dealt easily so I don't see your point...

uocooco is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 03:28 PM
  #978
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Beckham View Post
Bourque can be dealt easily so I don't see your point...
Yeah, Bourque's contract is long but it's small enough that it can be moved around if we don't care much about the return.

Et le But is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 03:33 PM
  #979
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
I didn't say anything about not taking a contract back, I said Bourque was a terrible piece to take back.



Wait...why would anyone take that contract? The guy was on the block for TWO months.

NO ONE wanted him. Gauthier obviously was stupid enough to when he panicked and wanted to get rid of Cammy ASAP.

But after seeing him with a Habs jersey on, ask yourself why any team would take that guy for FOUR more years @ 3.3M$. He's simply starting to get that toxic contract tag on him.



Even if it was a decent move, decent simply isn't good enough. We're not a in a position to make 'slightly' better than a sideway swap. We were a bubble team, so we basically downgrade in talent for a few futures and cap space over the next 2 years. What the **** is that? Seriously. Not great futures and nothing to help us in the present or the near future.

That's just not good enough. Like Gauthier is.
i'm no fan of Gauthier's work...

but i think you are sorely overestimating how little value Cammy had at the time we moved him.

Yes, argument could be made that we should have just kept him ("devil you know") if his value was that low, but it's not just speculation that he had become a cancer in the room... as bad as things have continued to be, results-wise, with him gone, having a guy like that around could have made things seriously worse.

Cammy had to go... we got a decent return for him (dislike Bourque all you want, doesn't remove the value of the 2nd + Holland).

Bourque is in the midst of his worse season in years. He could, like Gomez, continue to deteriorate, but he could also turn things around.

I'd rather have an unproductive 3M$ player than an unproductive 6M$ player who *****es/complains and acts like a prima donna.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 03:41 PM
  #980
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
i'm no fan of Gauthier's work...

but i think you are sorely overestimating how little value Cammy had at the time we moved him.

Yes, argument could be made that we should have just kept him ("devil you know") if his value was that low, but it's not just speculation that he had become a cancer in the room... as bad as things have continued to be, results-wise, with him gone, having a guy like that around could have made things seriously worse.

Cammy had to go... we got a decent return for him (dislike Bourque all you want, doesn't remove the value of the 2nd + Holland).

Bourque is in the midst of his worse season in years. He could, like Gomez, continue to deteriorate, but he could also turn things around.

I'd rather have an unproductive 3M$ player than an unproductive 6M$ player who *****es/complains and acts like a prima donna.
Once again, trade him for futures. Take a salary dump for a year on top of it if you have to. But please, don't take garbage on the hook for a long term. Everyone knew Bourque was terrible.

You could've went on the Flames boards and found that out FFS. But anyone who saw a bunch of Flames games could've told you what Bourque was all about.

It's mind-boggling how we can end up with a player like that. Nix the deal and pick some futures up at the deadline. If we wanted to save the season, why would you pick up a lesser player? The supposed 'cancer'? Enough with the BS.

It was a decent move if you wanted to get rid of Cammalleri. But it just wasn't good enough.

Em Ancien is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 03:54 PM
  #981
GeneralManager*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 238
vCash: 500
the point is why do we ONLY trade from a position of weakness? OMG he's a cancer, trade him. OMG he's under performing, trade him. Constantly getting ***** in trades is not how you run a good organization. Look at the trade deadline, how many teams were looking for a scorer...you don't think there would have been a bidding war for Cammalleri? If Cammalleri isn't in your plans, you keep it quiet...put him in a position to succeed and you try to increase his value as much as possible and THEN you trade him. Bourque is so worthless, we should have gotten a first round pick for Cammalleri, not a 2nd. THere's a huge difference between a first and a 2nd. Lets just hope this holland kid turns into something special to salvage this awful trade because at this juncture he's more important than the pick.

GeneralManager* is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 03:59 PM
  #982
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
Once again, trade him for futures. Take a salary dump for a year on top of it if you have to. But please, don't take garbage on the hook for a long term. Everyone knew Bourque was terrible.

You could've went on the Flames boards and found that out FFS. But anyone who saw a bunch of Flames games could've told you what Bourque was all about.

It's mind-boggling how we can end up with a player like that. Nix the deal and pick some futures up at the deadline. If we wanted to save the season, why would you pick up a lesser player? The supposed 'cancer'? Enough with the BS.

It was a decent move if you wanted to get rid of Cammalleri. But it just wasn't good enough.
How is Bourque "terrible"?

He is having a bad year and still on pace for 20+ goals after seasons of 27, 27 and 21(in 58 games).

At 3.3 mil/year he is a bargain.

I think if you find a skilled winger for him and Plekanec or Eller he should bounce back to 25+.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:01 PM
  #983
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
Once again, trade him for futures. Take a salary dump for a year on top of it if you have to. But please, don't take garbage on the hook for a long term. Everyone knew Bourque was terrible.

You could've went on the Flames boards and found that out FFS. But anyone who saw a bunch of Flames games could've told you what Bourque was all about.

It's mind-boggling how we can end up with a player like that. Nix the deal and pick some futures up at the deadline. If we wanted to save the season, why would you pick up a lesser player? The supposed 'cancer'? Enough with the BS.

It was a decent move if you wanted to get rid of Cammalleri. But it just wasn't good enough.
i agree with the bolded part... especially considering that PG didn't kick every possible tire before making the move.

that said, IF he had, and it did turn out to be the best deal on the table, I'd have taken it.


I live in Calgary, have seen quite a bit of Bourque since he came to Calgary... I maintain that his current level is a shell of what he is capable of. He may not be the "30 goal scorer" some tried to paint him as given his back-to-back 27 goal campaigns, but his play this entire season is well below the level he was at his 3 years in Calgary.

His confidence is clearly shaken, and as I mentioned, it was reported that he came into the season out of shape (not the first player to "pack it in" after signing a new contract).

Remains to be seen how he adjusts this offseason, but as an undrafted guy who "worked" his way into a permanent NHL role and earned a pretty big contract, I remain cautiously optimistic that his pride will kick in and that he'll rededicate himself this offseason.

As bad as he's been with us, I haven't really seen the "disinterested" play that marked his start of the year, he does seem to be trying and to be emotionally vested... i'm interested to see what he does with a full offseason to prepare and "bounce back" from this miserable season.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:04 PM
  #984
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
How is Bourque "terrible"?

He is having a bad year and still on pace for 20+ goals after seasons of 27, 27 and 21(in 58 games).

At 3.3 mil/year he is a bargain.

I think if you find a skilled winger for him and Plekanec or Eller he should bounce back to 25+.
that's misleading... with us, he's "on pace" for a 15 goal season.

and beyond measuring a player solely on his stat line, Bourque's level of performance all year (but especially with us) has been no where near "a bargain" at 3.3M$.

he needs to bounce back in a pretty major way next year to be anything but another veteran contract eyesore.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:07 PM
  #985
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
that's misleading... with us, he's "on pace" for a 15 goal season.
Considering the season the habs are having, I don't think that means much. Even Plekanec is on pace for 15 goals with the habs after putting up 20+ goals the last 5 years. Same can be said of Kostitsyn and Cammalleri while they were here.

Also there are guys like Joel Ward making the same salary and ridiculous players like Leino making even more. Bourque gets paid pretty fair for what he brings. The only thing that could be negative is his length of contract.

Andy is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:08 PM
  #986
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em Ancien View Post
Once again, trade him for futures. Take a salary dump for a year on top of it if you have to. But please, don't take garbage on the hook for a long term. Everyone knew Bourque was terrible.

You could've went on the Flames boards and found that out FFS. But anyone who saw a bunch of Flames games could've told you what Bourque was all about.

It's mind-boggling how we can end up with a player like that. Nix the deal and pick some futures up at the deadline. If we wanted to save the season, why would you pick up a lesser player? The supposed 'cancer'? Enough with the BS.

It was a decent move if you wanted to get rid of Cammalleri. But it just wasn't good enough.
looks like you forgot how Cammy played for us this season already...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:11 PM
  #987
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Considering the season the habs are having, I don't think that means much. Even Plekanec is on pace for 15 goals with the habs after putting up 20+ goals the last 5 years. Same can be said of Kostitsyn and Cammalleri while they were here.
I could be wrong because I haven't checked the stats but I suspect both Plekanec and Kostitsyn scored more goals than Cammy before the coaching change. Cammalleri was supposed to be our great sniper, Plekanec and AK are expected to be 20 goal a year guys.

Both Plek and AK weren't having ideal season but things really took a hit after we got a coach that had no interest in using either of them in offensive roles.

Et le But is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:21 PM
  #988
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
looks like you forgot how Cammy played for us this season already...
So trading an underachieving player for a worst underachieving player + pick and prospect is a great deal according to you?

I said it was decent. It wasn't good enough.

If the guy that made the deal had shown he had any vision or ability to do his job accordingly, this would have faded in the background. But this is another brick in the wall of ****.

Em Ancien is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:25 PM
  #989
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Considering the season the habs are having, I don't think that means much. Even Plekanec is on pace for 15 goals with the habs after putting up 20+ goals the last 5 years. Same can be said of Kostitsyn and Cammalleri while they were here.

Also there are guys like Joel Ward making the same salary and ridiculous players like Leino making even more. Bourque gets paid pretty fair for what he brings. The only thing that could be negative is his length of contract.
fair enough...

but I don't see how bringing up two comparable players who are widely seen as free agent-signing busts does anything but confirm that Bourque is NOT "a bargain" @ 3.3M$.

what's worse, is whereas Buffalo/Washington gave out those contracts at a time when both player's value were at an all-time high, we traded for Bourque when his value was at a distinctly low point.

also, Leino seems to have picked up his game, along with the rest of the Sabres, giving them 10pts in his last 18 games (they are 11-4-3 in that span), and as for Ward, his production really isn't that far off his typical, what's more interesting is that the Caps don't play him much (~13min/g) and don't use him almost at all on the PK (after being one of the PK leaders for Nashville)...


I maintain that for Bourque to be anything but another "dead weight" veteran contract assembled by this management team, he needs to return to a much higher level of production. He isn't a guy that is particularly good defensively, so his impact needs to come from physical play and from production. he has been using his body, but his production is no where near good enough, whatever the excuse.

Cammy & Kost were both jettisoned for their lack of production... so again, not sure how it's a useful comparison unless to point out that Bourque is skating on thin ice if he continues to play this way?

Miller Time is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:32 PM
  #990
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
fair enough...

but I don't see how bringing up two comparable players who are widely seen as free agent-signing busts does anything but confirm that Bourque is NOT "a bargain" @ 3.3M$.

what's worse, is whereas Buffalo/Washington gave out those contracts at a time when both player's value were at an all-time high, we traded for Bourque when his value was at a distinctly low point.

also, Leino seems to have picked up his game, along with the rest of the Sabres, giving them 10pts in his last 18 games (they are 11-4-3 in that span), and as for Ward, his production really isn't that far off his typical, what's more interesting is that the Caps don't play him much (~13min/g) and don't use him almost at all on the PK (after being one of the PK leaders for Nashville)...


I maintain that for Bourque to be anything but another "dead weight" veteran contract assembled by this management team, he needs to return to a much higher level of production. He isn't a guy that is particularly good defensively, so his impact needs to come from physical play and from production. he has been using his body, but his production is no where near good enough, whatever the excuse.

Cammy & Kost were both jettisoned for their lack of production... so again, not sure how it's a useful comparison unless to point out that Bourque is skating on thin ice if he continues to play this way?
I don't think I said Bourque's contract was a bargain. I said it was fair. There are not many players who scored 75 goals in their last 3 seasons making less money. He got market value for what he is worth. Having market value salary does not necessarily mean it's a bargain.

I don't see Bourque as deadweight, he's exactly what I expected, which is a complimentary player. Aside from the first line, not much has gone well for the habs offensively, even our offensive players weren't producing.

I don't think Cammalleri was jettisoned for his lack of production. I think that is mostly his attitude coupled with his production +his salary. If Cammaller was making 3.3 million he'd probably wouldn't get moved.

I don't think Kostitsyn was jettisoned for his lack of production either. He was moved because he was UFA and the team wasn't going to re-sign him. Not at all the same situation.

Bourque has shown he can score his fair share goals and I wouldn't use his short time here in Montreal as proof that it was a fluke since outside of a couple of players, no one is scoring regularly in Montreal.


Last edited by Andy: 03-05-2012 at 04:43 PM.
Andy is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:39 PM
  #991
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,058
vCash: 500
Here's of salary comparables with Bourque

http://capgeek.com/comparables.php?player=444

He got about market value. Length sucks, but cap hit is fine.

Andy is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:42 PM
  #992
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
that's misleading... with us, he's "on pace" for a 15 goal season.

and beyond measuring a player solely on his stat line, Bourque's level of performance all year (but especially with us) has been no where near "a bargain" at 3.3M$.

he needs to bounce back in a pretty major way next year to be anything but another veteran contract eyesore.

His on pace for is misleading, as he's been with the habs during a ****** year with ****** linemates and Scott Gomez still gets his pp time.

Analyzer is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:55 PM
  #993
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I don't think I said Bourque's contract was a bargain. I said it was fair. There are not many players who scored 75 goals in their last 3 seasons making less money. He got market value for what he is worth. Having market value salary does not necessarily mean it's a bargain.
no you didn't... you quoted a reply i wrote to a poster who did. Context?

His contract may have been "fair" at the time he signed it, but if he were to be a UFA this summer, doubt you'd find teams lining up to give him 4 years @3.3M$ (let alone the 6 he got from Sutter).

We traded for him at a time where his level of play was well below his contract (and actually, his production -at least goal scoring-, was still solid)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I don't see Bourque as deadweight, he's exactly what I expected, which is a complimentary player. Aside from the first line, not much has gone well for the habs offensively, even our offensive players weren't producing.
not sure if you are trying to rationalize, or if you really view his impact with us as the kind of "complimentary" you'd expect from a 3.3M$ player?

A big part of why nothing is going well for us offensively, is that he's been a pretty big dud in that regard. We're he playing a quality complimentary role, Pleks would have a decent winger to play with, they'd be producing a bit more, and the entire offense would be FAR more effective.

conversely, with Bourque displaying almost atypical stone hands and lack of finish, the team has zero complimentary production from any wingers outside the top line, and as a result the offense is in tatters.

I suppose it's a bit "chicken & egg", but I'd argue that Bourque, presumably as PG envisioned him (or at least, as he was at his best in Calgary), is/should be a much better "complimentary" player... his failure to be that is, imo, a big part of our struggles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I don't think Cammalleri was jettisoned for his lack of production. I think that is mostly his attitude coupled with his production +his salary. If Cammaller was making 3.3 million he'd probably wouldn't get moved.
absolutely... if not for his attitude + lack of production, he wouldn't have been traded for Bourque (+pick/holland)... which tells you a little bit about Bourque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I don't think Kostitsyn was jettisoned for his lack of production either. He was moved because he was UFA and the team wasn't going to re-sign him. Not at all the same situation.
Disagree. The team "wasn't going to re-sign him" precisely because he wasn't productive. Had he been productive, they'd have made a serious attempt to sign him.

Likewise, if Bourque continues to be unproductive next year, expect him to be jettisoned as well (perhaps even this offseason, depending on who is calling the shots).

Luckily for us, his actual salary drops to 2.5M$ in his final 2 years, so if he's struggling again next year, hopefully his contract is moveable without us needing to take back yet another unproductive/overpaid vet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Bourque has shown he can score his fair share goals and I wouldn't use his short time here in Montreal has proof that it was a fluke since outside of a couple of players, no one is scoring regularly in Montreal.
If you read my posts in this thread, I have made it pretty clear that I think Bourque could very well bounce back next year, and in fact I somewhat expect him to since his struggles this year seem strongly tied to a poor offseason last year... his past career history suggests a player willing to do what it takes to get better, the big contract perhaps derailed that but hopefully the "wake-up" call of being traded (away from his home province to-boot) & a miserably unproductive season, will get his butt in gear.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 04:59 PM
  #994
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Here's of salary comparables with Bourque

http://capgeek.com/comparables.php?player=444

He got about market value. Length sucks, but cap hit is fine.
when I look at that list, I see 3 things:

Productive players (pts-wise)
Players who bring strong two-way game
Players that are overpaid


Right now, Bourque is in the 3rd group.

Gomez makes 7.3M$... just b/c another player makes 6 or 7M$ while playing better than he does doesn't automatically make their cap hit "fine"... faulty reasoning.

Miller Time is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 05:01 PM
  #995
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
His on pace for is misleading, as he's been with the habs during a ****** year with ****** linemates and Scott Gomez still gets his pp time.
really, his "on pace" means nothing.

He has not been productive with us. He is not contributing much offensively/defensively. He regularly seems to be "fighting" the puck, unable to receive even simple passes in stride.


Having seen him a lot in the past few years, this is the worst I've seen him. Not sure why people feel the need to defend him

Miller Time is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 05:03 PM
  #996
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
when I look at that list, I see 3 things:

Productive players (pts-wise)
Players who bring strong two-way game
Players that are overpaid


Right now, Bourque is in the 3rd group.

Gomez makes 7.3M$... just b/c another player makes 6 or 7M$ while playing better than he does doesn't automatically make their cap hit "fine"... faulty reasoning.
Bourque averaging 20 goals a year for the past 3 years (including this one), while playing a two-way game, and bringing size + toughness (when he wants to fight) is somehow overpaid at 3.33 ?

What's Cammalleri, then ? Massively overpaid out the ass ?

Analyzer is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 05:03 PM
  #997
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
when I look at that list, I see 3 things:

Productive players (pts-wise)
Players who bring strong two-way game
Players that are overpaid


Right now, Bourque is in the 3rd group.

Gomez makes 7.3M$... just b/c another player makes 6 or 7M$ while playing better than he does doesn't automatically make their cap hit "fine"... faulty reasoning.
A guy who scores 75 goals in three years gets his market value. His one down season doesn't qualify him as overpaid.

Gomez's salary comparison isn't at the same as comparing Bourque to others in a similar price range. Not many players who are not on their entry level deal making less than 3 million while having 75 goals in their last 3 seasons. It would be foolish to expect otherwise, players get bigger contracts for doing less in a shorter amount of time.

I see Bourque in a similar light as Kostitsyn(even though Bourque has outscored Kostitsyn and is able to be used in more game situations than Andrei) and I thought Kostitsyn's deal was fair as well.

I don't see how Bourque's contract is an overpayment because he's on pace for 15 goals on a habs team where no one can score, not even the scorers.

Andy is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 05:07 PM
  #998
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
Bourque averaging 20 goals a year for the past 3 years (including this one), while playing a two-way game, and bringing size + toughness (when he wants to fight) is somehow overpaid at 3.33 ?

What's Cammalleri, then ? Massively overpaid out the ass ?
I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

Em Ancien is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 05:14 PM
  #999
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,015
vCash: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
Bourque averaging 20 goals a year for the past 3 years (including this one), while playing a two-way game, and bringing size + toughness (when he wants to fight) is somehow overpaid at 3.33 ?

What's Cammalleri, then ? Massively overpaid out the ass ?
I could swear I thought I was watching Habs game, but I know I have not seen Bourque 2 way game and toughness since he is on this team. Size, well he's got it, but he did not use it much.

Jamie Thomas is offline  
Old
03-05-2012, 05:14 PM
  #1000
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,131
vCash: 500
The Cammy criticism is unreal. My goodness. The guy had a crap year this year as has every other frigging player on the team not named DD, Cole, Patches.

Season 1: 69pts in 84 games
Season 2: 54pts in 74 games
Season 3: 22pts in 38 games

PPG in the playoffs

On a defensive team.

I personally hate the trade.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:20 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.