HFBoards

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

All Purpose Tank Thread - We're back to 28th

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2012, 02:32 PM
  #76
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaabs View Post
I thought the trade was aimed at rebuilding. A 2nd rounder could mean another player like MaxPac or Subban in the future, if we're lucky. Holland has also been tearing up the WHL.

72 GP
25 G
84 A
109 PTS
+42

Bourque's contract isn't so bad (3.3 mil/yr for 4 more seasons), he was supposed to be a big body that got the dirty goals. Instead he's been invisible. I don't mind having him in the lineup as a 3rd liner and giving one of the kids a shot at the 2nd line.

The 3 mil in cap space should help us resign our RFAs.
It wasn't a rebuild move. The main principles in the deal are Bourque and Cammy. The rest is window dressing. It's kind of like pointing to the Gomez trade and citing Pyatt as a rebuilding move.

As I said, the 2nd is nice but we shouldn't have been going after Bourque in the 1st place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
No one could possibly disagree with this -- even Bourque. The problem with impotence is you don't know if he's unable to score, or if the team just doesn't turn him on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
Bourque didn't just forget how to score goals, and yet something's turned his touch flaccid. This has happened with other players who come here and see their points dip. Is it something about the Habs? Have we become the ugly sister that players just want to be friends with?
Bourque was flaccid before he came here, hence the fact that Calgary couldn't wait to be rid of him. Yet for some reason, these are the players we keep going after.

I would make a Viagra joke but I don't want to be uh... too hard on him.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 02:35 PM
  #77
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
It wasn't a rebuild move. The main principles in the deal are Bourque and Cammy. The rest is window dressing. It's kind of like pointing to the Gomez trade and citing Pyatt as a rebuilding move.

As I said, the 2nd is nice but we shouldn't have been going after Bourque in the 1st place.


Bourque was flaccid before he came here, hence the fact that Calgary couldn't wait to be rid of him. Yet for some reason, these are the players we keep going after.

I would make a Viagra joke but I don't want to be uh... too hard on him.
Bourque is a salary dump, if you think we went after him you missed the boat. We went after a good 2nd round pick and to be free from Cammalleris cap hit.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 02:37 PM
  #78
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Are there players like Mike Cammalleri who got more on the trade market, in the past 3 years, then we got for Mike Cammalleri?

Cammalleri, in my opinion, is a 1st line winger on a mediocre team or a 2nd line winger on a great team.

We got a replacement roster player, a risky prospect with upside, and a 2nd round pick that could be the 31st overall of the 2013 NHL entry draft. It may not be a home run, but it's at least a double in my opinion, and certainly not a double play.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 02:39 PM
  #79
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Eller, he has already shown he liks to play on Pleks wing and it allows Pleks to be more aggressive on the dot because if he gets tossed out Eller is a decent centre aswell.
I really like the Plek-Eller duo, now if we could only get an Erik Cole on that line.

Myron Gaines* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 02:45 PM
  #80
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAlone View Post
I really like the Plek-Eller duo, now if we could only get an Erik Cole on that line.
This is why I could easily see us trading up for Colubus's pick if we can hold onto 2nd or 3rd. It sounds crazy but to move up one or two spots we might be only looking at giving up a 2nd rounder.

Yakupov on the other side gives us that well balanced line of offense, defense and playmaking.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 02:45 PM
  #81
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAlone View Post
I really like the Plek-Eller duo, now if we could only get an Erik Cole on that line.
It makes sense to find out if Eller can be an effective winger as there is a high probability (~50%) we will draft an offensive center.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 02:47 PM
  #82
Craig71
Registered User
 
Craig71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by le_sean View Post
To think of all the ****** Habs teams in the 90s and none finished this poorly. The parity in the league is crazy. I don't think the Habs are a good team, but I also don't think they are the 2nd worst in the league.

Crazy season, that's for sure. You can't afford a prolonged losing streak anymore. Unfortunately the Habs had one to start the season and never really recovered.
Our poor powerplay was also a big reason for such an awful season, our penalty kill was awesome and our goaltending was good as well. We were terrible at holding leads due to Scott Gomez being more valuable to the team than Ryan Mcdonagh. (He would have logged so many minutes) We didnt get consistent scoring from anyone but Patch,Coleslaw and little dd, also a big reason that we are 29th.

Theres alot of work to be done and I doubt that the coming off season will fix it all. I could see us near the bottom again next year . The new GM needs to take Rene Borque on a Kovalev type of walk and see where his head is. Plekanec desperately needs a big winger that is at his skill level, the guy has speed to burn and despite a poor season is still one of our best forwards.

We need Campoli,Weber,Diaz gone and relaced with at least 2 big tough Dmen.There are more problems but i'm too depressed to keep writing.

Craig71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 02:53 PM
  #83
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Balearic Islands
Posts: 23,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Dealing away Cammy for spare parts and a bad contract is not good. And it's esp bad when you consider that we should've been looking to rebuild the club. The 2nd is nice and all but we basically dumped Cammy and that's something you do with Hal Gill, not Mike Cammalleri. That was an extremely dumb trade. Esp. when you consider the manner in which it went down.
I actually liked the trade cause I couldn't stand Cammy and with him being owed 14M over the next 2 years, I was glad to see him moved.

To me getting a prospect and a 2nd rounder in what could end up being an excellent draft class while cutting 2.7M in cap space over the next 2 years sounds more like a rebuild move.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:15 PM
  #84
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Bourque is a salary dump, if you think we went after him you missed the boat. We went after a good 2nd round pick and to be free from Cammalleris cap hit.
There was no reason to dump Cammy. None. He was a good asset we needlessly dumped because he said something PG didn't like. Other clubs would've paid for him at the deadline but we dumped him for next to nothing.

As for the salary we saved... it's offset by the fact that we're stuck with Bourque for longer. Again, we were well out of it by this point, why not rebuild? Why waste an asset like this for a player nobody else wants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
This is why I could easily see us trading up for Colubus's pick if we can hold onto 2nd or 3rd. It sounds crazy but to move up one or two spots we might be only looking at giving up a 2nd rounder.

Yakupov on the other side gives us that well balanced line of offense, defense and playmaking.
Why would Columbus do this? They'd have to be brain dead to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
I actually liked the trade cause I couldn't stand Cammy and with him being owed 14M over the next 2 years, I was glad to see him moved.

To me getting a prospect and a 2nd rounder in what could end up being an excellent draft class while cutting 2.7M in cap space over the next 2 years sounds more like a rebuild move.
What does that salary space do for us now? Salary cap makes sense when you're contenders and are trying to add the last piece of the puzzle. Right now we have so many holes in this lineup it's not funny.

And again, we're stuck with Bourque for longer than we'd have had Cammy so this makes no sense. If anything we should be taking on MORE of a cap hit now if it means getting back the right prospects and picks. If another club is hamstrung on the cap, now would be the time to take on bad contracts (if they're short) as long as we get good prospects in return. Taking on longer bad contracts right now is worse because in three years time we'll (hopefully) be a better team and having Bourque STILL on the books absolutely sucks for us.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-26-2012 at 03:22 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:21 PM
  #85
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
There was no reason to dump Cammy. None. He was a good asset we needlessly dumped because he said something PG didn't like.

As for the salary we saved... it's offset by the fact that we're stuck with Bourque for longer. Again, we were well out of it by this point, why not rebuild? Why waste an asset like this for a player nobody else wants?

Why would Columbus do this? They'd have to be brain dead to do it.

What does that salary space do for us now? Salary cap makes sense when you're contenders and are trying to add the last piece of the puzzle. Right now we have so many holes in this lineup it's not funny.

And again, we're stuck with Bourque for longer than we'd have had Cammy so this makes no sense. If anything we should be taking on MORE of a cap hit now if it means getting back the right prospects and picks. If another club is hamstrung on the cap, now would be the time to take on bad contracts (if they're short) as long as we get good prospects in return. Taking on longer bad contracts right now is worse because in three years time we'll (hopefully) be a better team and having Bourque STILL on the books absolutely sucks for us.
No way. Other teams will be more open to acquire a guy making 3,3 million than another underchiever making 6 million. Bourque is way easier to trade than Cammy.

By the way, have you watched Cammy play this year for the Habs ?

habitue* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:25 PM
  #86
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,354
vCash: 500
Lafleur's guy,

The people who argue we could have gotten more for Halak have never been able to show serious examples, from the past twenty five years, of a goaltender fetching more in trade value than what we got for Halak: Lars Eller and Ian Schultz.

Do you have any examples (2 would be good) of a player like Mike Cammalleri getting more in trade value than we got, that are from the past 3 to 5 years?

ETA: Joffrey Lupul, a player similar to MC, was worth approximately one third of Chris Pronger, and one third of Francois Beauchemin.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:27 PM
  #87
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
No way. Other teams will be more open to acquire a guy making 3,3 million than another underchiever making 6 million. Bourque is way easier to trade than Cammy.

By the way, have you watched Cammy play this year for the Habs ?
Who's going to want him? Seriously?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:27 PM
  #88
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

What does that salary space do for us now? Salary cap makes sense when you're contenders and are trying to add the last piece of the puzzle. Right now we have so many holes in this lineup it's not funny.

And again, we're stuck with Bourque for longer than we'd have had Cammy so this makes no sense. If anything we should be taking on MORE of a cap hit now if it means getting back the right prospects and picks. If another club is hamstrung on the cap, now would be the time to take on bad contracts (if they're short) as long as we get good prospects in return. Taking on longer bad contracts right now is worse because in three years time we'll (hopefully) be a better team and having Bourque STILL on the books absolutely sucks for us.
Unlike Cam, Bourque can be used effectively on 3d line. Also at 3.3 cap hit, he's still a easy commodity to move. Plus opens up space for different talent in top 6. While you were stuck playing Cam top 6 no matter what. Not sold on the trade, but i think we will see the fruits of it next couple of years; depending on moves to come IMO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Who's going to want him? Seriously?
Many teams who are in need for "physical" winger that can "score". i don't see how Bourque value has dropped so significantly over such small amount of time. Right now, bourque looks ****ing useless. But so does this team, so it's not much of an indication of anything. Like i said, he would make our 3d line look good with the proper players if trading him is not possible (which i highly doubt)

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:33 PM
  #89
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
This is why I could easily see us trading up for Colubus's pick if we can hold onto 2nd or 3rd. It sounds crazy but to move up one or two spots we might be only looking at giving up a 2nd rounder.
Even if the Canadiens gave Columbus an offer that they couldn't refuse, the Blue Jackets would have to. The negative PR that would necessarily come with giving up a #1 overall pick would be too great. Columbus is struggling to keep existing Season Ticket Holders and a lot of them might bail if they gave up the Nail. That was very bad, I know.

Now, if the Canadiens would package their pick and a few players for Nash.......................

Cyclones Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:33 PM
  #90
subbang76
I CAN SPEAK FRENCH!
 
subbang76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 162
vCash: 500
I like Rene Bourque and I'm willing to give him a second chance here in Montreal. The guy has had 3 50pts seasons before. He's just having an off year. Bourque and Plekanec have had some bright spots in the 30+ games he's been here. The Canadiens just need another winger (with size) who can play the other wing. IMO, the Canadiens won the Bourque - Cammalleri deal as they also got a top prospect who is tearing it up in Western League and they got a 2nd rounder... What did Calgary get? an inconsistent and frequently disgruntled winger.

subbang76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:39 PM
  #91
NJHABFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BELMAR
Posts: 72
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewBACHa View Post
finishing in top 5 and win the draft
ahhhh ok ...the lottery.....we can only hope to win....

NJHABFAN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:41 PM
  #92
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Who's going to want him? Seriously?
If Bourque starts out strong next season, then he might become fairly marketable. If he maintains his current level of play, then I'm with you. I couldn't imagine the scenario in which another team would feel that he would add value.

Cyclones Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:42 PM
  #93
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Balearic Islands
Posts: 23,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And again, we're stuck with Bourque for longer than we'd have had Cammy so this makes no sense. If anything we should be taking on MORE of a cap hit now if it means getting back the right prospects and picks. If another club is hamstrung on the cap, now would be the time to take on bad contracts (if they're short) as long as we get good prospects in return. Taking on longer bad contracts right now is worse because in three years time we'll (hopefully) be a better team and having Bourque STILL on the books absolutely sucks for us.
It does make sense in terms of math, Cammy costs more money over the life of his contract then Bourque does. 14M vs 12M cammy is over 2 years, bourque over 4. Bourque's actually salary drops to 3M next season, while Cammy's goes up from 6M to 7M.

So Cammy's is the worst contract of the two.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:54 PM
  #94
dm1371
Registered User
 
dm1371's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chicoutimi, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Minnesota will finish 29th imo, they have a really tough schedule

dm1371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 03:57 PM
  #95
llamateizer
Registered User
 
llamateizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Country:
Posts: 5,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJHABFAN View Post
ahhhh ok ...the lottery.....we can only hope to win....
see this thread for the odds of being picked as winner. (not same odd as getting 1st overall)
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1144767

Odds of Winning the 1st Overall Pick - as of March 23rd
48.2% - Columbus Blue Jackets
18.8% - Edmonton Oilers
14.2% - Montreal Canadiens
10.7% - New York Islanders
8.1% - Toronto Maple Leafs

llamateizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 04:44 PM
  #96
Belso
Registered User
 
Belso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJHABFAN View Post
ahhhh ok ...the lottery.....we can only hope to win....
Top 3 picks...
Yakupov
Grigorenko
Forsberg

If the Habs can draft any of those 3 guys I'll be happy really. So if they end the season in 5th place, there's always hope. Most importantly they have to end in the bottom 5.

Belso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 05:28 PM
  #97
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Bourque is a salary dump, if you think we went after him you missed the boat. We went after a good 2nd round pick and to be free from Cammalleris cap hit.
He has more cap hit left on his contract as Cammy does. Bourque is a terrible acquisition IMO. Love to be proved wrong down the road but based on the arc of his career, we turned 2 more years of first line fail into 4 years of 2nd line fail. The pick is nice and Holland's an outstanding junior-level player, who knows if he'll be more than that, but Bourque himself is a major headache PG added to the team just when he's supposed to be clearing them out. Kaberle redux. That part of the trade is Niniimaa-quality awful. Nobody knows what Cammy's value might have been, but I know I don't want Bourque anywhere near my team.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 05:38 PM
  #98
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Lafleur's guy,

The people who argue we could have gotten more for Halak have never been able to show serious examples, from the past twenty five years, of a goaltender fetching more in trade value than what we got for Halak: Lars Eller and Ian Schultz.

Do you have any examples (2 would be good) of a player like Mike Cammalleri getting more in trade value than we got, that are from the past 3 to 5 years?

ETA: Joffrey Lupul, a player similar to MC, was worth approximately one third of Chris Pronger, and one third of Francois Beauchemin.
The day after Cammy's comments there were tons of analysts talking about how all kinds of clubs could use a guy like him down the stretch drive. We deal him less than 24 hours later? And for a guy nobody wanted? Made no sense.

Paul Gaustad went for a 1st man. It was a sellers' market and we crapped the bed. Hell, we could've packaged AK and Cammy together, you don't think teams would've been more interested? Instead we dump each of them for two 2nd rounders, spare parts and a bad contract coming back the other way... Stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
Unlike Cam, Bourque can be used effectively on 3d line. Also at 3.3 cap hit, he's still a easy commodity to move. Plus opens up space for different talent in top 6. While you were stuck playing Cam top 6 no matter what. Not sold on the trade, but i think we will see the fruits of it next couple of years; depending on moves to come IMO
With all due respect: Who gives a crap? I mean seriously... why are we trying to get a 3rd liner for a guy like Cammy? We're hovering near the bottom of the Conference and we rush out for this guy?

The entire premise of the trade is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
Many teams who are in need for "physical" winger that can "score". i don't see how Bourque value has dropped so significantly over such small amount of time. Right now, bourque looks ****ing useless. But so does this team, so it's not much of an indication of anything. Like i said, he would make our 3d line look good with the proper players if trading him is not possible (which i highly doubt)
It hasn't been a small period of time. Bourque was ripped to shreds by Kelly Hrudey all the way back in November. He SPECIFICALLY made fun of the Flames' assertion that there was a club out there enquiring about this guy. He's been roasted in the press all year long for lack of effort. Any surprise that he's shown none here?

As to your point about him not being effective on THIS team... well, why are we going after a 30 year old player in exchange for Cammy anyway? I can understand taking on Bourque's contract if we're at least getting a first rounder back but a 2nd and a prospect who's doubtful to even make the NHL?

Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclones Rock View Post
If Bourque starts out strong next season, then he might become fairly marketable. If he maintains his current level of play, then I'm with you. I couldn't imagine the scenario in which another team would feel that he would add value.
You're right, he could get hot. He's done it before and maybe we can deal him away.

It just seems like every time we trade for one of these bums we're sitting there debating on whether or not we can dump them off on somebody else. Why are we going after these guys in the first place? It's just ANOTHER player that we're hoping to be able to dump down the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
It does make sense in terms of math, Cammy costs more money over the life of his contract then Bourque does. 14M vs 12M cammy is over 2 years, bourque over 4. Bourque's actually salary drops to 3M next season, while Cammy's goes up from 6M to 7M.

So Cammy's is the worst contract of the two.
Not for us. Our club sucks right now. Cap space is meaningless for us. Down the road however when we're (hopefully) a better team and are trying to sign guys like Price, Subban and Max the cap is going to start to have an impact on us. Right now doesn't matter. Bourque's contract is longer so it's actually worse for us.

And like I said, I'd have been okay with dealing Cammy and taking salary back (including Bourque's contract) IF we're getting a first out of it. But to lose Cammy (who actually HAS value) and take on salary and a questionable player with no first rounder? Again... just makes absolutely no sense.

I totally get the (valid) argument that we'd probably have to take salary back if we dealt Cammy. I think we'd have to as well. But for the love of God, if we're going to do that then at least get a first rounder out of it. We didn't even shop the guy around for Pete's sake.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-26-2012 at 05:46 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 05:38 PM
  #99
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm1371 View Post
Minnesota will finish 29th imo, they have a really tough schedule
I think so too.. I also think the NYI will finish below the Habs.. The Habs will pick 4-6th IMO..

sheed36 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2012, 05:44 PM
  #100
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
He has more cap hit left on his contract as Cammy does. Bourque is a terrible acquisition IMO. Love to be proved wrong down the road but based on the arc of his career, we turned 2 more years of first line fail into 4 years of 2nd line fail. The pick is nice and Holland's an outstanding junior-level player, who knows if he'll be more than that, but Bourque himself is a major headache PG added to the team just when he's supposed to be clearing them out. Kaberle redux. That part of the trade is Niniimaa-quality awful. Nobody knows what Cammy's value might have been, but I know I don't want Bourque anywhere near my team.
I really hope I'm proven wrong too. When we dealt for him I was really, really hoping that he'd go on a hot streak and maybe add us an additional dimension of toughness and scoring. I wasn't the least bit surprised though when that didn't happen.

We gave up the best player in the deal, a guy with a shorter contract and we did it for peanuts. And we saddle ourselves with another guy the other club can't wait to be rid of. We've become the biggest dumping ground in the league...

And I'd actually be okay with this IF we were getting first rounders included in the deal. If we got a first rounder for taking on Kaberle... makes a lot more sense. Ditto with Bourque. But that's not the case. We take these guys on for no reason... and we lose trading assets to boot. It's moves like these that have killed us for a while now and that's why we're 2nd last in the entire league right 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 10:22 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.