HFBoards

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

THE OFFICIAL BUYOUT THREAD: Bourque or Kaberle?

View Poll Results: Who do you buy out?
Gomez 72 67.29%
Bourque 16 14.95%
Kaberle 64 59.81%
Markov 2 1.87%
other 0 0%
I only buy out 1 player 8 7.48%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 107. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-09-2013, 02:04 PM
  #301
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
Cap efficent is a relative thing though, it not a linear in value. If you manage to maximize cap efficency you'll end up with a terrible team and a lot of dead cap space. And dead cap space that is not being used is worthless.
certainly are varying ways of interpreting "cap efficiency"... but I think one factor not to ignore is that each individual season does not exist in a bubble.

"dead" cap space not used in one season is "worthless" in the sense that it does not contribute to the teams performance that year, but filling up that "dead" space just because its there with contracts that take away from available space in future seasons is/can be more harmful than simply standing pat.

Kaberle's addition is a perfect example of that. While its pretty clear that he wasn't a negative addition (as frustrating as his soft play was, he did still contribute in some areas better than what our exisiting alternatives did/would have), and we did have the cap space to fit him in, we are now stuck with a player counting towards far more of the cap than his play warrants.

that kind of lack of foresight kills teams, and was a hallmark of the way previous management ran the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
In the latter part of the first cap CBA, being cap efficent everywhere didn't help. The endlessly rising cap and liberal contract rules meant that in general, impact players were much more valuable than cap space because teams rarely had to give up on a player they really wanted for cap reasons, which resulted in a heavily inflated UFA market due to lack of supply to meat the ample demand. Especially since the rising cap meant that an overpayment in year 1 of a long term deal could easily be fair market value by year 3 or 4. Teams like Philadelphia built very good teams with a "screw the cap, get the impact player" approach. It only blew up in their face when they went after bridge too far in chasing a goaltender.
right, but the difference is that they did so in a much more effective manner...

of their big money trade/UFA aquisitions in recent years, only Bryzgalov really stands out as a poor return on investment.

Cammy, Gomez, Bourque, Kaberle... all major flops.

Nothing wrong with being aggressive in spending to the cap, but there is a big difference between teams that manage that well and teams that don't.

Philly's move last year, which many panned, worked out quite well (even as richards/carter found themselves reunited in winning a cup for LA), and showed that with the right kind of approach, you can even re-stock young (cheaper) talent while being a cap spending team.

that's not to say anyone does it perfectly/flawlessly (see Bryz), but wether you spend to the cap or not, doing so with the right mix of short/long term focus is key. We haven't seen that around here for some time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
In Montreal's case, a combination of cheap goaltending and the absence of veteran elite home-grown talent with the presence of a lot of cheap homegrown depth players gave the team a lot of leeway in spending cap hit on veteran imports. The outside veterans weren't cap efficent, but there wasn't anything cap efficient to use that money on anyway. The only other use for it would be to either sign another UFA or to trade for an player with a big contract another team was trying to get rid of. Otherwise the space lies fallow and useless.
disagree. In the summer of 09, when Gainey screwed things up royally with his rush to overspend on a glut of veterans who underwhelmed hurt the team in a major way.
Our cap & roster situation at that time was ideal for a strategic 2-3 year phase of buidling a contender. We had lot's of expiring contracts, a veteran core that could have easily been retained at far less cost (both in assets -McD/Higgins- & in $$) while giving us very similar production.
Doing so would have allowed us to be a player when those rare high-end established talents did become available in trade or UFA (pronger, kovalchuk, hossa, heatley -granted he has regressed-, nash, richards, richards, Carter, Byfuglien, Burns, Parise, Suter, Gaborik)...

that's a pretty big list of elite talent that have changed teams in the past 3-4 seasons, and we really haven't been in the running for any of them primarily because we simply didn't have the cap flexibility to make a serious push (be it in contract offer, or in viable trade ability).

while many pinned for it, it's understandable that the organization/management didn't feel justified in burying Gomez's 7M$ hit in the minors, as the Rangers did with their 6M$ mistake, but failing that, it wasn't realistic for us to be chasing/courting another 6-7M$ player while having Gomez/Cammy on the roster.

replace those two with Koivu/Kovalev in 09, and obviously we could have been at the front of the line with offers for some of that elite talent that was on the move in recent years.

can't do that when you have a happy trigger finger and treat the cap like something that must be used up every year, regardless of future implications & without a viable roster building strategy (i mean really, at this stage is there anyone who can intelligently support the "smurf" approach Gainey took???)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
E.G. Hamrlik wasn't cap efficient at 5.5 million, but if you got rid of him for free then its unlikely you'd have anything drastically more efficient to spend that 5.5 million on anyway so it was better to have a solid 2nd defenseman than 5.5 million in new cap space as he filled a need.
i think you have to look at the whole cap efficiency thing from a broader perspective, as opposed to by a player/player basis.

Every team will carry some veteran players who are "overpaid", and in many cases getting the right player need-wise is worth the 1-2M$ premium he might cost over what he's actually 'worth' (which is subjective anyhow).

even Gomez, as a stand alone move, as absolutely terrible as it was, wouldn't have been as handicapping were he not then paired with the 6M$ cammalleri & 5M$ gionta. 7M$ of the cap on a player giving you 3rd line quality or worse is problematic... 18M$ on 3 players, none of which give you above average top-line play (except for Cammy's brief heroic playoff run) leads you to dead last in the conference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
This isn't to say that cap inefficency is a virtue, far from it. But its not the highest virtue when looking at value. The cap is like the draft, a resource to be exploiting help create a better team not a virtue in of its self.
the "virtue" is efficient management... at all levels. Cap, draft, player development... getting the most out of the assets you have, finding ways to extract as much value as you can, is what successful organizations in any industry do.

The NFL offers great examples of that imo. Some organizations have such a better approach to managing their operations efficiently, that they remain successful consistently (pats, steelers, giants, packers), whereas others are so inept that despite a league set up that almost forces each team to get better, they consistently end up starting over (Bills, Jags, Lions).

NHL isn't quite as cut/dry, because league parity & team spending is a much less rigid, but our organization, as a "big spender" has been a great example of how NOT to efficiently manage your assets.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
Now if the previous regime was a lot stronger on asset management in general, of which cap management is a component but not the entirety, they'd be much better off. In the most cases it was squandered player assets rather than squandered cap that hurt. The only time a team got assets in trade for cap space was the Chicago post Cup fire-sale. And only one team out of 30 benefited there.
agree with the first part, not the second... several trades over the past few years have had cap/salary implications. The chicago one was the most lopsided due largely to the mistake that forced them into a quick turnaround... blood in the water is blood in the water.

several of the players i listed above moved at least in part b/c of financial considerations. and then looking at 2nd tier players, a ton of guys have moved b/c their existing team either needed to re-allocate their cap spending or were cutting salary.

we just weren't in a good position to benefit because we had so much big money tied up at the top of our cap structure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
As far as the new regime goes, I don't think the guy who signed Prust to a 2.5M contract is heavily concerned with cap efficiency.
disagree again... cap efficiency is not simply "buying low". It's having a clear model of what you want the roster to look like, and allocating money effectively at each level (from the high end earners to the low end earners) to get the value, on-ice, you require at each level.

If MB thinks Prust can give the team quality bottom-6 minutes, quality PK minutes, and the protective "stick up for skill players" element we've so sorely lacked the past several years, 2.5M$ could be a bargain...

if he's wrong, and Prust goes the route of Gainey's attempt to toughen up the roster (BGL), then it's a mistake, but one that is far easier to clean up then a mistake in the top-tier of earners.

I like that move, in particular

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 03:18 PM
  #302
Young Gun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,245
vCash: 500
Gomez for sure, Kaberle don't bother with, his contract is out at the end of the season. I would think next on the list would be Markov, good time to really see what he can do on
that banged up knee of his, and he is aging. If they make the playoff's, would like to see good number's for that money, he hasn't blessed us with great number's in the playoff's
over his hab day's

Hope they didn't give up on the big guy from the farm yesterday for that squirt, where there's smoke, there's fire ( My brother is a fire fighter, he know's stuff like that...lol ) Nash has balls, habs need balls to be fruitful !!!!!!!!!!!! lol, I have a new drug this season called madifinil, should be a fun season, its going to
be my last.


Last edited by Young Gun: 01-09-2013 at 03:28 PM.
Young Gun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 07:33 PM
  #303
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Interesting thoughts about Redden from Bob Mac on TSN today... noting the concern with potentially NOT being able to buy out a player who gets hurt. It was all about Redden and the Rangers. But could apply as easily to us with Gomez.

We MUST exercise a compliance buyout on Gomez this summer to meet the $64.3M cap. Well, ok, maybe we're in a slightly better spot, maybe we could somehow get away with using two buyouts on a couple other players, slightly less obvious than Gomez, but still not exactly crucial to retain. We have that many potentially "undesirable" players, alas.

But still, it would be pretty awful if Gomez dislocated his shoulder or something while playing out this season, and we couldn't buy him out. Or wait, just when is the "window" for compliance buyouts? Anytime from June/July 2013 straight through to September 2014? Or is it just the same 2-week windows as before, in the summer of 2013 and then again 2 weeks in the summer of 2014? If it's the former, no issue. The latter, the injury scare is real.

BM's argument was that the Rangers should keep Redden in "bubble wrap" until they can buy him out. Keep him with the team, but not playing or practicing or risking injury in any way.

It might make sense for us with Gomez too. If there is a short window constraint for the compliance buyouts, anyway.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 08:20 PM
  #304
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Interesting thoughts about Redden from Bob Mac on TSN today... noting the concern with potentially NOT being able to buy out a player who gets hurt. It was all about Redden and the Rangers. But could apply as easily to us with Gomez.

We MUST exercise a compliance buyout on Gomez this summer to meet the $64.3M cap. Well, ok, maybe we're in a slightly better spot, maybe we could somehow get away with using two buyouts on a couple other players, slightly less obvious than Gomez, but still not exactly crucial to retain. We have that many potentially "undesirable" players, alas.

But still, it would be pretty awful if Gomez dislocated his shoulder or something while playing out this season, and we couldn't buy him out. Or wait, just when is the "window" for compliance buyouts? Anytime from June/July 2013 straight through to September 2014? Or is it just the same 2-week windows as before, in the summer of 2013 and then again 2 weeks in the summer of 2014? If it's the former, no issue. The latter, the injury scare is real.

BM's argument was that the Rangers should keep Redden in "bubble wrap" until they can buy him out. Keep him with the team, but not playing or practicing or risking injury in any way.

It might make sense for us with Gomez too. If there is a short window constraint for the compliance buyouts, anyway.
I think that's a great point. I want to poke holes in that argument - ideally I'd like to see the best players on the ice no matter their contract situations - but from an asset management POV, I think preserving the option to buyout Gomez is crucial.

Roulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2013, 09:38 PM
  #305
68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Gomez is a lost case but I think Bourque can "roar back". Kaberle, if he ate well and lifted during the lockout, could be a serviceable D.

68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:06 AM
  #306
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,726
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68 View Post
Gomez is a lost case but I think Bourque can "roar back". Kaberle, if he ate well and lifted during the lockout, could be a serviceable D.
I don't think Kaberle even lifts.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:16 AM
  #307
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,282
vCash: 500
Habs are not buying out R Bourque !!!! When they could easily trade him. Pretty silly actually.

PunkinDrublic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:39 AM
  #308
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
I think that's a great point. I want to poke holes in that argument - ideally I'd like to see the best players on the ice no matter their contract situations - but from an asset management POV, I think preserving the option to buyout Gomez is crucial.
I guess it all comes down to any particulars around the compliance buyout window. If it's just wide open anytime after the season ends until anytime before the 2014-15 season starts, then the risk is relatively low... I mean, Gomez could still get a major injury that causes a headache, but an LTIR assignment could let us squeeze some things back in to get around it, etc. Relatively low risk.

But the old regular buyout window was pretty restrictive, June 15th - June 30th or whatever, and this season is going to May, and it isn't that big an injury to be out until June 30th.

So I won't panic or anything until I see details about the compliance buyout period, if any further ones remain. Keep the "bubble wrap Gomez" thought in the back of our mind in the meantime, though, just in case it becomes a real issue. As with the tagging and so on for Subban, it could. The devil is in some of these CBA details.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:13 PM
  #309
ChoseLa
Registered User
 
ChoseLa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Martinique
Posts: 3,848
vCash: 500
Martin McGuirre is reporting that Kabby lost about 15lbs.

ChoseLa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2013, 09:28 PM
  #310
vokiel
#NoTradesWithEDM
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Midgetland
Country: Martinique
Posts: 5,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChoseLa View Post
Martin McGuirre is reporting that Kabby lost about 15lbs.
Hum ookay.. That's good?

15 lbs is a lot, so he didn't really work out at all right? He's just out of a gastro?

vokiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2013, 04:26 PM
  #311
Hank Scorpio
Registered User
 
Hank Scorpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Interesting thoughts about Redden from Bob Mac on TSN today... noting the concern with potentially NOT being able to buy out a player who gets hurt. It was all about Redden and the Rangers. But could apply as easily to us with Gomez.

We MUST exercise a compliance buyout on Gomez this summer to meet the $64.3M cap. Well, ok, maybe we're in a slightly better spot, maybe we could somehow get away with using two buyouts on a couple other players, slightly less obvious than Gomez, but still not exactly crucial to retain. We have that many potentially "undesirable" players, alas.

But still, it would be pretty awful if Gomez dislocated his shoulder or something while playing out this season, and we couldn't buy him out. Or wait, just when is the "window" for compliance buyouts? Anytime from June/July 2013 straight through to September 2014? Or is it just the same 2-week windows as before, in the summer of 2013 and then again 2 weeks in the summer of 2014? If it's the former, no issue. The latter, the injury scare is real.

BM's argument was that the Rangers should keep Redden in "bubble wrap" until they can buy him out. Keep him with the team, but not playing or practicing or risking injury in any way.

It might make sense for us with Gomez too. If there is a short window constraint for the compliance buyouts, anyway.
I saw this too and it also got me thinking... what if we were to trade Bourque and Kaberle to a team like New York Rangers for a player like Wade Redden?

If the organization would like to buy out both these players and Gomez, we would need to lose a contract and, as BM suggested, no team wants to give up an asset such as a pick/prospect in order to move a contract.If we were to make such a trade, we would take on a really ugly contract but it would also bring us down to two clear buy outs rather then one and what may turn out to be a coin toss without giving up assets.

A team in NYR's position gets two players who are more serviceable at the NHL level then the player they buried; a player who is only an abysmal season with a terrible team away from being a 25+ goal scorer and another who, if limited to soft minutes and labelled as a power play specialist may turn out to be more good then harm.

Hank Scorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-11-2013, 06:57 PM
  #312
crazyd
Canada is hockey
 
crazyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Scorpio View Post
a player who is only an abysmal season with a terrible team away from being a 25+ goal scorer and another who, if limited to soft minutes and labelled as a power play specialist may turn out to be more good then harm.
And how can this hurt us, I mean to keep them? Our young guns are not ready to hit the big leagues anytime soon....even next season could be shady to introduce prospects to the lineup - exception noted for Galchy.

Bourque is a great commodity to have in a lineup. A commodity that defines depth in a lineup. It makes no sense to take him out of the roster after only 38 games after the trade. And it is blindsided to see as a great option to use one of the amnesty buyouts on his contract in order to retrieve $7M over the next few years. Amnesty buyouts are for quick fixes for big money on short term. That is the aim of amnesty buyouts.

I voted for Gomez because I do not believe he will bounce back. He crashed and burned.

My other option could be Kabby simply because I feel it would be hard to get a suitor in a trade. Whereas Gionta and Bourque are more marketable.

That being said I would definately trade Gomez for a pick so that a team wanting to offer him a contract can get the exclusivity.

crazyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:32 PM
  #313
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Snippin' Yank
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,219
vCash: 597
Safe to say Kaberle is FAR in the lead right now. Man has he looked bad.

Bourque has been solid so far.

Marc the Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:34 PM
  #314
ClasslessGuy
Registered User
 
ClasslessGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Longueuil, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,036
vCash: 500
Pretty sure we could find someone for Kaberle. Everybody is looking for def right now. Same for Weber

ClasslessGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:34 PM
  #315
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan View Post
Safe to say Kaberle is FAR in the lead right now. Man has he looked bad.

Bourque has been solid so far.
Damn straight. Bourque is a player this team needs. Needs to be a little more physical, though.

Analyzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:39 PM
  #316
sharks9
Registered User
 
sharks9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClasslessGuy View Post
Pretty sure we could find someone for Kaberle. Everybody is looking for def right now. Same for Weber
Yea we need to trade one of them. Tinordi can come up in case of injuries.

We might be able to get something decent for one of them with all the teams looking for help.

sharks9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:40 PM
  #317
Hannibal
Brandon Prust FTW
 
Hannibal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,260
vCash: 500
Kaberle GTFO!!

Hannibal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:48 PM
  #318
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,938
vCash: 500
I wouldn't buy out either. Keep Bourque and trade Kaberle for a pick(s).

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:50 PM
  #319
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,088
vCash: 500
I'd say that unless he retired we trade Kabs for Patrick Traverse.

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:54 PM
  #320
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,052
vCash: 500
Both are playing quite well, Bourque is making some excellent plays on his off wing and being a strong presence on our top line and Kaberle has probably the best first pass on the team even if he is saddled with Boullion on the 2nd pp unit. Once Subban comes back Kaberle will be able to feed someone who can shoot.

Keep them both, we will need that kind of depth if we want to make ANY kind of playoff run.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:57 PM
  #321
Guilliam
Registered User
 
Guilliam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,761
vCash: 500
Markov

Guilliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 08:59 PM
  #322
Patofqc
Registered User
 
Patofqc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
After 3 games i can already tell you that Kaberle will be bought out. He sucks ass right now.

Patofqc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:12 PM
  #323
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patofqc View Post
After 3 games i can already tell you that Kaberle will be bought out. He sucks ass right now.
After 3 games I can already tell you have no clue.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 09:54 PM
  #324
SnapVirus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mtl., QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,824
vCash: 500
As soon as Subban signs. I'd trade Kaberle for whatever I can get.

A 3rd rounder? Fine.

SnapVirus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-24-2013, 11:30 PM
  #325
hogtownhabsfan
Registered User
 
hogtownhabsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,668
vCash: 500
Kaberle has been a massive disappointment.

hogtownhabsfan 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 06:42 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.