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

To Bourque or not to Bourque

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2012, 03:39 PM
  #251
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewHabsEra View Post
Bourque was a salary dump in this thread.. the real material we got are Holland and a second round pick, Bourque is garbage..
he's certainly played that way for us... though I imagine PG thought he'd slot in nicely next to pleks as a bigger guy who "goes to the dirty areas"... problem is that he often times it wrong, doesn't move well with the puck in space nor pass effectively, & generally floats the rest of the time either sulking or appearing disinterested (which in Bourque's case, i'd speculate that its more sulking/getting down on himself... would explain a lot really -including why Sutter gave him the long deal).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
On what planet is a guy who scored 27 goals the last 2 years and makes a more than reasonable 3.3 mil cap hit a salary dump or garbage?
i get what your saying, but as BG points out below, sometimes players fall into the "right place at the right time" and then fall back off the map. After his play this entire season, and into many parts of last year, he's definitely trending in a negative direction over a considerable amount of "healthy" time.

if the gives us 10-15 goals next year (his pace in almost 40 this year), does that 3.3M$ still look appealing?

flames were partly gambling on that (as well as Holland not thriving, Rammo being a fit, Cammalleri providing the right spark... 2 out of 4 ain't bad, plus a crapshoot on a 5th).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Yeah, I mean Dagenais' 17 goals in 50 games, or Jonas Hoglund floating up 50-some goals in 2 seasons after we dumped him and then floating back to Sweden, and so on and so on and so on... you can always find examples of guys who got 20-some goals and were basically "garbage". Often guys who made a lot less than $3.3M too. It's not just the goal totals. (Although in Bourque's case, 5 in 38 games seems quite representative). It's the whole package you see when watching him play.

We will of course be stuck hoping that he bounces back from the 5 in 38 level, at least. But I think he had many detractors at the 27 goal level too. I guess we'll see. Fingers crossed.
summed up perfectly...

very disappointing "audition" last year, we just have to hope that he does some reflecting, that the jolt of getting quickly dumped by the team that just gave you a long term deal "wakes him up", he has a great offseason, and comes in determined to play with greater compete levels on a nightly basis...

if he does just that, the guy has the skating, size and "in-tight hands", to be even better than he was at the peak of his "27 goal/50pt" time in Calgary.

at that level, he's a very solid contributor at 3.3M$.

we'll see what kind of fight he has in him in training camp & early next year. We'll know quickly, barring injury, if he's done the right work to get his career back on track.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 03:45 PM
  #252
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
The Habs did not pay a premium, they cut salary for a lesser player and were given a pick and prospect for it.
agree completely.

Holland (and on the flames side, Rammo), are the "wild cards" that both teams could end up benefiting hugely from, but weren't likely focal points.

Habs got a lesser player, 1/2 the cap hit & a 2nd round pick
Flames got a better player, double the cap hit

and value-wise that's not so far off from what Cammy was likely worth at the time. Perhaps holding out until closer to the deadline gets you a bit more, but PG proved himself inept at managing assets effectively so as far as his tenure goes, this deal was on the positive side.

Holland runs the risk of turning it into a gem for Gauthier, like the Gorges-esque "steal" that helped pad Gainey's resume... but who would complain about that

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 03:52 PM
  #253
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
Holland is a decent prospect, just because he's not a "surething" doesn't make the trade stupid. We can go round and round cause I see that you will just keep saying the same thing.
I didn't say his inclusion made the trade stupid. I said his inclusion does not rescue this deal from being bad. He's a throw in who may or may not make the league. Maybe he'll turn into a decent 3rd or 4th liner... but that still doesn't turn this bad trade into a good one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
I understood the Gomez trade, I think it was the right idea just the wrong player, the Habs sorely needed to improve at the center position, and it's the Habs lack of ability to draft and develop skilled centers over the '90's and early '00's that led to getting a crappy player like Gomez. Had Gomer produced anything close to what he did when he had his big season the deal wouldn't be so bad but now we are stuck with a guy that looks like he's completely washed up. Poor asset management and pro scouting as well as paying a high price for such a brutal contract.

I think getting a pick and a prospect while getting rid of Cammy was just what the Habs should have done.
Pick and a prospect? Sure. If it's a 1st. Or if it's a strong propect. But if it's a 2nd and a prospect who nobody is sure that will make the NHL... no. Doesn't make sense to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
It seems like we are on total opposites of view points, I'm not sure how anyone could think this trade was "awesome" for the flames though, if they don't make the playoffs they are paying him a ton of money when he's a guy you want in the playoffs not on the golf course in April.
His salary is somewhat negated by Bourque's departure. His contract is shorter and he's easier to deal away. They took a run at the playoffs and it cost them next to nothing. Moreover, they got rid of a headache and they got Rammo and a 5th.

That's a great trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
I also don't understand why you are hung up on the cap hit being 6M, I know what his hit is and I know that his actual salary is 7M. The teams have to pay him 7M a year now, not 6 and as I said not many teams will add a guy making 7M a year. I'm sure you will just respond by telling me that it doesn't matter and that his cap hit is 6M, as if I didn't get that the first time you stated that.
Because the cap hit is all that matters if you're trying to win a cup. Moreover, his salary hit was only for half the year (or less if we'd waited for a deadline deal) and that's peanuts if he helps you get to the playoffs or (even better) helps you advance a round. That is actually money very well spent, unfortunately, it didn't work out for Calgary but given that Feaster's hands were tied by his owners, this was an awesome move on his part.

Feaster has to know that he's got to rebuild. The owners don't understand it but I'm sure Feaster does. And Cammy's only got two years left on his deal. If the owners still insist that he makes the postseason next year, then Cammy can help get them there. If not, he's not going to be hard to trade. And if he wants to rebuild (as we should be doing) then he can get a good return on him (as we should've) at the deadline.

At worst he gets back what he paid and there's no risk there. I don't see us getting anything for Bourque at all. We're stuck with him for the next three seasons whether we like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
I also don't know if you are aware of the meaning behind the word premium, but that's not the word I would use to describe the trade. The Habs did not pay a premium, they cut salary for a lesser player and were given a pick and prospect for it.
We gave up an asset for next to nothing. When you overpay, you are paying a premium. If you pay three bucks for a can of Coke, it's still a premium. Doesn't matter that it's only a can of Coke or three bucks.

Cammy was our best goalscorer (at least until Pacman broke out this year) and we basically dumped him for nothing (maybe worse than nothing.) Be honest man, you actually think that this deal was the BEST deal we could get? You actually think that we couldn't have done any better than this? Of course we could. You don't think a team like say... Nashville would've been interested in him? Of course they would.

We didn't even try to find out.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 04-18-2012 at 03:57 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 03:58 PM
  #254
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
agree completely.

Holland (and on the flames side, Rammo), are the "wild cards" that both teams could end up benefiting hugely from, but weren't likely focal points.

Habs got a lesser player, 1/2 the cap hit & a 2nd round pick
Flames got a better player, double the cap hit

and value-wise that's not so far off from what Cammy was likely worth at the time. Perhaps holding out until closer to the deadline gets you a bit more, but PG proved himself inept at managing assets effectively so as far as his tenure goes, this deal was on the positive side.

Holland runs the risk of turning it into a gem for Gauthier, like the Gorges-esque "steal" that helped pad Gainey's resume... but who would complain about that
Except that the cap hit is meaningless for us right now. It will probably matter more in three years though when Bourque's deal is still on the books. It's nice that the owners save a few bucks, but I doubt they're going to pass that on via cheap beer at the Bell Center.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 04-18-2012 at 04:04 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 03:58 PM
  #255
Coldplay
Courage
 
Coldplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,578
vCash: 500
Actually, Gionta was our best goal-scorer.

Coldplay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 03:59 PM
  #256
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldplay View Post
Actually, Gionta was our best goal-scorer.
Hopefully we can trade him too. Just not for another Bourque please.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 04:09 PM
  #257
Andrighetto Fabolous
Ghetto
 
Andrighetto Fabolous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,020
vCash: 500
Trade looks even better when you look at it this way:

Cammalleri, Ramo, 5th rounder and 10th overall pick

for

Bourque, Holland, 2nd rounder and 3rd overall pick

We were 6 points out of 10th last in the league, if we had Cammalleri we could've easily won 3 more games and ended up ruining our lottery pick.

Andrighetto Fabolous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 04:14 PM
  #258
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Except that the cap hit is meaningless for us right now. It will probably matter more in three years though when Bourque's deal is still on the books. It's nice that the owners save a few bucks, but I doubt they're going to pass that on via cheap beer at the Bell Center.
if Bourque were to falter significantly again next year, and be unmovable, I'd expect the team to waive him and send him to the minors in year 3 if needed, until then I can give them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a cost-savings move as much as a cap savings move.

i don't think that's how Gauthier sold the move, according to Feaster we had been in contact with the flames for months about acquiring Bourque... as poorly as that may reflect on PG's pro scouting abilities, the actual transition that took place wasn't that bad for us.

moving Bourque, by the time he's really a "need" move (as bad as he was, I don't see him as urgent to remove as Kaberle/Gomez in order for us to ice a competitive playoff team. Bourque can still feasibly play a suitable top-9 winger role and at 3.3M$, the bar isn't that high for him to be even a decent value, let alone a strong one.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 04:16 PM
  #259
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pernell Karl View Post
Trade looks even better when you look at it this way:

Cammalleri, Ramo, 5th rounder and 10th overall pick

for

Bourque, Holland, 2nd rounder and 3rd overall pick

We were 6 points out of 10th last in the league, if we had Cammalleri we could've easily won 3 more games and ended up ruining our lottery pick.
LG surely appreciates that aspect...

without the Cammy trade, or with a better return, maybe we lose that highly coveted top-5 pick & shot at elite talent

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 04:43 PM
  #260
montreal
Moderator
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Greenland
Posts: 26,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I didn't say his inclusion made the trade stupid. I said his inclusion does not rescue this deal from being bad. He's a throw in who may or may not make the league. Maybe he'll turn into a decent 3rd or 4th liner... but that still doesn't turn this bad trade into a good one.

Pick and a prospect? Sure. If it's a 1st. Or if it's a strong propect. But if it's a 2nd and a prospect who nobody is sure that will make the NHL... no. Doesn't make sense to do this.

His salary is somewhat negated by Bourque's departure. His contract is shorter and he's easier to deal away. They took a run at the playoffs and it cost them next to nothing. Moreover, they got rid of a headache and they got Rammo and a 5th.

That's a great trade.

Because the cap hit is all that matters if you're trying to win a cup. Moreover, his salary hit was only for half the year (or less if we'd waited for a deadline deal) and that's peanuts if he helps you get to the playoffs or (even better) helps you advance a round. That is actually money very well spent, unfortunately, it didn't work out for Calgary but given that Feaster's hands were tied by his owners, this was an awesome move on his part.

Feaster has to know that he's got to rebuild. The owners don't understand it but I'm sure Feaster does. And Cammy's only got two years left on his deal. If the owners still insist that he makes the postseason next year, then Cammy can help get them there. If not, he's not going to be hard to trade. And if he wants to rebuild (as we should be doing) then he can get a good return on him (as we should've) at the deadline.

At worst he gets back what he paid and there's no risk there. I don't see us getting anything for Bourque at all. We're stuck with him for the next three seasons whether we like it or not.

We gave up an asset for next to nothing. When you overpay, you are paying a premium. If you pay three bucks for a can of Coke, it's still a premium. Doesn't matter that it's only a can of Coke or three bucks.

Cammy was our best goalscorer (at least until Pacman broke out this year) and we basically dumped him for nothing (maybe worse than nothing.) Be honest man, you actually think that this deal was the BEST deal we could get? You actually think that we couldn't have done any better than this? Of course we could. You don't think a team like say... Nashville would've been interested in him? Of course they would.

We didn't even try to find out.
Throw in or not, imo it's still a good idea to get guys like Holland as we need more skill among the forwards. My favorite part is still the pick but if Holland does well next year with the Dogs, we'll see what it leads to.

I think you are too hung up on the it must be a 1st and a strong prospect to not be a stupid trade, if Cammy was a better player maybe but soft one sided players that are overpaid, getting a top 50 pick in a strong draft sounds good to me at least.

We'll see what happens, personally I'd be surprised if Cammy is easier to move, if the flames hold onto him and miss the playoffs again though, then is it still a "great" trade?

Cap hit is all that matters, what a joke. Try telling your boss that when you are a GM and the owner wants to know how his money is being spent.

I don't think Cammy was much of an asset though, which is why I don't consider the trade to be a premium, to me it was more of a salary dump for a team that the ship was sinking on.

So what season did Cammy lead the Habs in goals, I must have missed that. As for the best deal, unlike others around here I don't pretend that I know what any of the 29 GM's are willing to pay. But tell yourself whatever you want, could we have gotten more for Cammy, perhaps, but at least he's gone and we got something decent for it. One good thing for me is no more Cammy!

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 05:59 PM
  #261
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pernell Karl View Post
Trade looks even better when you look at it this way:

Cammalleri, Ramo, 5th rounder and 10th overall pick

for

Bourque, Holland, 2nd rounder and 3rd overall pick

We were 6 points out of 10th last in the league, if we had Cammalleri we could've easily won 3 more games and ended up ruining our lottery pick.
Sure. But we could've gotten a 1st who wouldn't have been in the lineup anyway.

Then again, Bourque wouldn't have been here and sucked up all those unproductive minutes. And I can't think that there would have been anyone in our lineup or in our system whou could've been as inneffective as he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
if Bourque were to falter significantly again next year, and be unmovable, I'd expect the team to waive him and send him to the minors in year 3 if needed, until then I can give them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a cost-savings move as much as a cap savings move.

i don't think that's how Gauthier sold the move, according to Feaster we had been in contact with the flames for months about acquiring Bourque... as poorly as that may reflect on PG's pro scouting abilities, the actual transition that took place wasn't that bad for us.

moving Bourque, by the time he's really a "need" move (as bad as he was, I don't see him as urgent to remove as Kaberle/Gomez in order for us to ice a competitive playoff team. Bourque can still feasibly play a suitable top-9 winger role and at 3.3M$, the bar isn't that high for him to be even a decent value, let alone a strong one.
Look is it the end of the world that we made this trade? No, of course not. But it wasn't good and we wasted an asset. And we've done way too much of that. It's not just this one trade that kills us its the cummulative effect of so many of these kinds of deals. This is just another in a long string of moves where we don't improve our team and give up an asset that other clubs would've paid for. And we do it WHILE taking on a problem player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
Throw in or not, imo it's still a good idea to get guys like Holland as we need more skill among the forwards. My favorite part is still the pick but if Holland does well next year with the Dogs, we'll see what it leads to.
Of course it is. I wouldn't disagree. But when we're looking at a trade like this Holland does not turn a bad deal into a good one. He's an incidental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
I think you are too hung up on the it must be a 1st and a strong prospect to not be a stupid trade, if Cammy was a better player maybe but soft one sided players that are overpaid, getting a top 50 pick in a strong draft sounds good to me at least.
First, it doesn't sound like it's going to be a strong draft at all. Then again if it was why are we giving up a 5th? Maybe it's the 5th that turns into Wayne Gretzky instead of the 2nd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
We'll see what happens, personally I'd be surprised if Cammy is easier to move, if the flames hold onto him and miss the playoffs again though, then is it still a "great" trade?
Sure it is. They took a shot at the playoffs and it cost them next to nothing. They gave up a prospect and got one back plus they mitigated the loss of the 2nd by getting a 5th. They got the better player out of the deal and a shorter contract to boot.

Cammy is better if the owners want to try for 8th and he's easier to move if they don't. They also managed to deal a guy they couldn't wait to get rid of. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
Cap hit is all that matters, what a joke. Try telling your boss that when you are a GM and the owner wants to know how his money is being spent.
Yeah saving all that money sure saved PG's job didn't it?

The money doesn't matter. Molson can wake up tomorrow and smoke 100 dollar bills to his heart's content. Bottom line is that PG didn't know how to build a winner and this deal is exhibit A on that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
I don't think Cammy was much of an asset though, which is why I don't consider the trade to be a premium, to me it was more of a salary dump for a team that the ship was sinking on.

So what season did Cammy lead the Habs in goals, I must have missed that. As for the best deal, unlike others around here I don't pretend that I know what any of the 29 GM's are willing to pay. But tell yourself whatever you want, could we have gotten more for Cammy, perhaps, but at least he's gone and we got something decent for it. One good thing for me is no more Cammy!
The guy was never healthy for us except in the playoffs where he was among top for the last two seasons in not only goals per game but points as well. That has value doesn't it? Pretty sure there are clubs out there who could use a monster player in the playoffs.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 06:26 PM
  #262
Alexdaman
Ferret Lover/Master
 
Alexdaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Pominville, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,007
vCash: 50
Cammy never played at his full potential with Montreal, one can argue that Iginla is the reason for his success in Calgary but there seemed to always be something missing in the way he played here, only in the playoffs that he really showed his talent. One for one Cammy for Bourque is a terrible trade but with a 2nd pick it's better, but still not okay because draft picks are never a sure thing. If Bourque had played the way he should I would be praising this trade but we instead get a player that is a huge liability on our roster and were left with a draft pick that if not a good one, we will have just given away Cammalleri for nothing.

Alexdaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 06:26 PM
  #263
Macbeth
Registered User
 
Macbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Petite-Patrie, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The point the poster was making was the clubs can't add big contracts at the deadline. It's one million more on the cap hit...

So uh, HEY I guess teams CAN make those kinds of moves.

I don't have a tough time with anything. I'm not suggesting that we'd get the same return as Jeff Carter or that we'd have to in order to make it a success. I was ripping apart your flimsy argument with a clear example of a team making a deal for a large contract at the deadline... happens EVERY YEAR.

Nobody expected us to land a pack of star players and 1st rounders for Cammy. But if you're not getting a first rounder or GOOD prospect at the very least out of it then you're wasting an asset for no good reason.

And that's exactly what we did.

(As an aside for Jack Johnson... great offensively. But he's a one way blueliner. He's one of those guys who I expected would develop better than he did. I haven't seen much of LA this season so I can't comment too much on his progression but he seems like a one way guy to me.) Do I think Cammy gets Johnson and a 1st? Hell no. But I would've been okay with just the 1st.
That was not my point at all.

Teams can do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want.

My point was teams who would add a player like Cammalleri will not because the salaries they'd have to give back to have him fit under the cap ceiling belong to quality players that have helped bring said team to a good position in the standings, and won't get moved for an uni-dimensionnal, injury prone, weak of character "sniper".

And whenever these deals do happen, where big money players are exchanged, they're usually of equal worth and belond to an upper-echelon of quality. Not only were Jeff Carter and Jack Johnson better hockey players than Mike Cammalleri, they also had easier to manage cap hits (Carter, for sixty-eight years, at that cap hit, with what he can bring and do on the ice, is a downright steal).

There was no flimsy argument from the get go, only something that turned into such when you had your way with it.

It's okay, mate, we can all see the batdung craziness seeping through every single one of your "THIS IS STUPID, GOD, WHAT A STUPID TEAM, **** MY LIFE, GAH, JEEZ, TERRIBLE" brain leaks.

So, YES OR NO, is Mike Cammalleri worth Jeff Carter ? Or Jack Johnson ? Forget the pick, man - it does not matter what it is or who it becomes... allegedly; just these guys, one for one, straight up - YES OR NO.

Macbeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 07:37 PM
  #264
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macbeth View Post
That was not my point at all.

Teams can do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want.

My point was teams who would add a player like Cammalleri will not because the salaries they'd have to give back to have him fit under the cap ceiling belong to quality players that have helped bring said team to a good position in the standings, and won't get moved for an uni-dimensionnal, injury prone, weak of character "sniper".

And whenever these deals do happen, where big money players are exchanged, they're usually of equal worth and belond to an upper-echelon of quality. Not only were Jeff Carter and Jack Johnson better hockey players than Mike Cammalleri, they also had easier to manage cap hits (Carter, for sixty-eight years, at that cap hit, with what he can bring and do on the ice, is a downright steal).

There was no flimsy argument from the get go, only something that turned into such when you had your way with it.

It's okay, mate, we can all see the batdung craziness seeping through every single one of your "THIS IS STUPID, GOD, WHAT A STUPID TEAM, **** MY LIFE, GAH, JEEZ, TERRIBLE" brain leaks.

So, YES OR NO, is Mike Cammalleri worth Jeff Carter ? Or Jack Johnson ? Forget the pick, man - it does not matter what it is or who it becomes... allegedly; just these guys, one for one, straight up - YES OR NO.
Is Cammalleri better than Carter? Of course not. I'm pretty sure I made that clear above.

WTH does that have to do with anything though? Because he's not Jeff Carter he therefore has no value? Jeff Carter isn't as good as Evgeni Malkin, does that mean he's not worth anything either? Your argument was big contracts don't get moved... I showed you they do. Now only a player as good as Carter can get moved? You aren't making any sense here. As I said, he doesn't have to get the same return as Carter did for it to be a good deal. If you're not getting a first or great prospect from Calgary though, there's no point in making the trade. Esp when you get a headache in the deal.

Bottom line trading for a headache like Bourque and wasting an asset makes no sense for us. I had the same conversations back when we picked up Gomez. This is no different. Bourque has sucked (as expected) and now we have to somehow try to convince ourselves that it somehow made sense to get rid of a guy like Cammy before the deadline and make this mess of a deal.

The only thing I've heard here is "well we saved some money"... well big freaking deal. Unless it means cheaper beer at the arena (it won't) then it doesn't mean a hill of beans.

If you actually want to build a winner and you're not going anywhere then you deal vets for picks and prospects. You don't go making sideways (at best) moves like this. This wasn't a rebuild move, it wasn't about saving money... it was a last ditch effort by a GM desperate to save his job who was insulted by his player and made a rash move.

There's absolutely NO reason not to shop him around. Calgary is offering this? Okay, see what else is out there. Hell, Calgary might've even come back with more themselves. Then maybe it can help you longterm.

PG did not care about longterm. He cared about 8th. That's why he traded for Kaberle. That's why against all reason, he continued to try to make sideways moves instead of improving the club for down the road. Yet, folks like yourself try to dress this stuff up as being good or us having NO CHOICE but to make these kinds of stupid moves.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 09:08 PM
  #265
Bobs your uncle
Registered User
 
Bobs your uncle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,100
vCash: 500
At the time of the trade with Calgary I said Bourque would infuriate Hab fans in no time.
Not to say I told you so but ....
My sincerest condolences.

Bobs your uncle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 09:19 PM
  #266
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobs your uncle View Post
At the time of the trade with Calgary I said Bourque would infuriate Hab fans in no time.
Not to say I told you so but ....
My sincerest condolences.
And I think the thing we must know by now is that even if he does start well and *seem* to have "rebounded" to start next season... it's really only a matter of time with him.

That's part of why I'd just cut and run now. If we could. Yeah, I can imagine situations where he provides us some modest value. But I *know* he's not a long-term component of The Answer for our team. At best, he rebounds and is a decent filler player for a little while as we continue to try to find the right mix. At worst... well, we hopefully already saw the worst in his first 38 games here.

If we get any chance to move ahead and forego all the inevitable angst, I'd just go with it. I don't really want to "settle" for band-aid players like this. If we aren't able to get a guy who we can rely on, then go ahead and use some kids who might develop into guys who we can rely on. I don't want to waste time treading water on players like Bourque who we know ultimately aren't going to properly fit a contending lineup. He feels like one of those Houle/Andre Savard era players who shuffled in for a while. Then faded away.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 10:20 PM
  #267
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
And I think the thing we must know by now is that even if he does start well and *seem* to have "rebounded" to start next season... it's really only a matter of time with him.

That's part of why I'd just cut and run now. If we could. Yeah, I can imagine situations where he provides us some modest value. But I *know* he's not a long-term component of The Answer for our team. At best, he rebounds and is a decent filler player for a little while as we continue to try to find the right mix. At worst... well, we hopefully already saw the worst in his first 38 games here.

If we get any chance to move ahead and forego all the inevitable angst, I'd just go with it. I don't really want to "settle" for band-aid players like this. If we aren't able to get a guy who we can rely on, then go ahead and use some kids who might develop into guys who we can rely on. I don't want to waste time treading water on players like Bourque who we know ultimately aren't going to properly fit a contending lineup. He feels like one of those Houle/Andre Savard era players who shuffled in for a while. Then faded away.
I don't have any problem with him being an AHL player until his contract runs out. Buying him out isn't an option for at least a year or preferably two and if another team wants him, there's always re-entry waivers. He doesn't seem to make waves so it shouldn't be hard to let him play with our young stars in Hamilton.

Xmas or the all-star break should be about the right length of time before we send him down. I thought with our shortage of wingers he'd last another year and a half or so but the more I think about it the less I like that idea.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 10:48 PM
  #268
Whitesnake
Steel your Habs away
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,794
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
I think dumping all the Kaberle's and Campolis and replacing them with sandpaper d-men is not fixing the problem, just creating another. Like most things in life you need moderation, need to have both skill on defense as well as guys to hit, block shots and clear the crease. I think we need another big stay at home with an edge(Jackman Allen Salvador etc).
You do realize that we speak the same language here? Big solid punishing d-man does equal big stay at home with an edge d-man, so I'm not sure why my demand would create a problem while you're looking for the same thing.

First, we will dumb Campoli. So I'm pretty sure nobody is hesitant to do it. Then, we might be stuck with Kaberle. But you already have that skills, first pass out of the zone with Markov, Subban and Emelin, and Gorges can do his first pass as well. If anything, it's having Kaberle that is redundant. And the only place we are not redundant is with those BIG stay-at-home defensive D.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2012, 12:47 AM
  #269
Macbeth
Registered User
 
Macbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Petite-Patrie, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Is Cammalleri better than Carter? Of course not. I'm pretty sure I made that clear above.

WTH does that have to do with anything though? Because he's not Jeff Carter he therefore has no value? Jeff Carter isn't as good as Evgeni Malkin, does that mean he's not worth anything either? Your argument was big contracts don't get moved... I showed you they do. Now only a player as good as Carter can get moved? You aren't making any sense here. As I said, he doesn't have to get the same return as Carter did for it to be a good deal. If you're not getting a first or great prospect from Calgary though, there's no point in making the trade. Esp when you get a headache in the deal.

Bottom line trading for a headache like Bourque and wasting an asset makes no sense for us. I had the same conversations back when we picked up Gomez. This is no different. Bourque has sucked (as expected) and now we have to somehow try to convince ourselves that it somehow made sense to get rid of a guy like Cammy before the deadline and make this mess of a deal.

The only thing I've heard here is "well we saved some money"... well big freaking deal. Unless it means cheaper beer at the arena (it won't) then it doesn't mean a hill of beans.

If you actually want to build a winner and you're not going anywhere then you deal vets for picks and prospects. You don't go making sideways (at best) moves like this. This wasn't a rebuild move, it wasn't about saving money... it was a last ditch effort by a GM desperate to save his job who was insulted by his player and made a rash move.

There's absolutely NO reason not to shop him around. Calgary is offering this? Okay, see what else is out there. Hell, Calgary might've even come back with more themselves. Then maybe it can help you longterm.

PG did not care about longterm. He cared about 8th. That's why he traded for Kaberle. That's why against all reason, he continued to try to make sideways moves instead of improving the club for down the road. Yet, folks like yourself try to dress this stuff up as being good or us having NO CHOICE but to make these kinds of stupid moves.
Have you ever not warped anything in your life ?

I have never said anything as such. Never.

I have reiterated many times over (twelve hundred, actually, I kept count) that these type of trades don't usually happen, but if they do, players of equal value are moved and for bigger, better packages.

Cammalleri isn't as good as Carter or Johnson, hence why, even with endless shopping around like an undesirable hooker, one could only get Bourque, Holland, and a second rounder for him.

It's simple, really.

Nothing nefarious, nobody trying to sabotage the legacy of the mighty Habs.

Just plain old guy sucking wind getting moved for questionnable parts.

It is what it is.

I said this wasn't NHL 12 because one cannot simply move a player off some sort of "objective" worth or value; looks like you believe this can be achieved, and that might very well be the root of all (evil) your psychological troubles.

Macbeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2012, 08:47 AM
  #270
montreal
Moderator
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Greenland
Posts: 26,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Of course it is. I wouldn't disagree. But when we're looking at a trade like this Holland does not turn a bad deal into a good one. He's an incidental.

First, it doesn't sound like it's going to be a strong draft at all. Then again if it was why are we giving up a 5th? Maybe it's the 5th that turns into Wayne Gretzky instead of the 2nd.

Sure it is. They took a shot at the playoffs and it cost them next to nothing. They gave up a prospect and got one back plus they mitigated the loss of the 2nd by getting a 5th. They got the better player out of the deal and a shorter contract to boot.

Cammy is better if the owners want to try for 8th and he's easier to move if they don't. They also managed to deal a guy they couldn't wait to get rid of. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Yeah saving all that money sure saved PG's job didn't it?

The money doesn't matter. Molson can wake up tomorrow and smoke 100 dollar bills to his heart's content. Bottom line is that PG didn't know how to build a winner and this deal is exhibit A on that fact.

The guy was never healthy for us except in the playoffs where he was among top for the last two seasons in not only goals per game but points as well. That has value doesn't it? Pretty sure there are clubs out there who could use a monster player in the playoffs.
While it's still very early for the 2013, I think you are nuts if you think it doesn't sound like it's going to be a strong draft. We traded our 5th in this years draft not next years, so not sure why you even bring it up. Getting a top 50 pick next year imo is great, time will tell, but for me personally i'm very excited to see what happens by next June as the '13 could end up being a truely great one, clearly though a lot can happen between now and then since we are talking about 16/17 year olds, since we just saw that for this draft class but things change quickly when talking about future draft classes.

We'll see what the flames paid, Ramo is under contract in the KHL so there's no telling if he will come over or not and the fans might not be so happy to see their team pay Cammy 7M next year and give us a top 50 pick if they miss the playoffs again. It was a good gamble for them if it pays off since he was good for them in the past but having him at such a high salary and missing the playoffs while giving up youth won't be so fun if things don't work out for them next season.

I think you are in dreamland if you think money doesn't matter.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2012, 11:14 AM
  #271
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macbeth View Post
Have you ever not warped anything in your life ?

I have never said anything as such. Never.

I have reiterated many times over (twelve hundred, actually, I kept count) that these type of trades don't usually happen, but if they do, players of equal value are moved and for bigger, better packages.

Cammalleri isn't as good as Carter or Johnson, hence why, even with endless shopping around like an undesirable hooker, one could only get Bourque, Holland, and a second rounder for him.

It's simple, really.
Actually, it's BS.

Our GM went out and traded Cammy in the middle of a game less than 24 hours after Cammy's comments and well before the trade deadline rush. It's not the best deal he could get, it was the quickest deal he could get. It was done out of expediency, embarrassment and desperation. That's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macbeth View Post
Nothing nefarious, nobody trying to sabotage the legacy of the mighty Habs.

Just plain old guy sucking wind getting moved for questionnable parts.

It is what it is.

I said this wasn't NHL 12 because one cannot simply move a player off some sort of "objective" worth or value; looks like you believe this can be achieved, and that might very well be the root of all (evil) your psychological troubles.
You brought up NHL12 to be a smart ass. And the sad truth (as I correctly pointed out) is that our management has actually managed our team that way.

Who else do you know gets rid of their entire core for no return only to get 3 equivalent players back at double the cost? Who else goes out and deals away a sniper like Cammy after a few negative comments the next day in the middle of a game?

It's been an absolute joke. And yet, we make fun of the Leafs for their joke of an organization. The truth is... we haven't been much better over the years. The only real difference is that we've drafted better and have held onto some of these picks. Other than that it could've easily been them in the playoffs instead of us on many an occassion.

We've had the objective of making the playoffs and nothing more over the years. 8th place was deemed a success. Well, maybe you're okay with this but I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the sideways moves and short term gains and small minded goals.

We were out of it. And yet PG still tried for 8th. That's what we ALWAYS DO and that's all this move was about... distancing himself from a little egg on his face and making 8th. There was no long term planning here at all, just like in the Kaberle deal. And that's why he's a failure as a GM.

Saying that Cammy couldn't be moved for anything else is BS. And I'm not "warping" anything here. The reality is that players get traded all the time with contracts far larger and longer than Cammy's. Plus... we had cap room to spare so there's NO reason why we couldn't make something happen. So please don't try to sell this silly argument because it's patently silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
While it's still very early for the 2013, I think you are nuts if you think it doesn't sound like it's going to be a strong draft.
My mistake. I thought you were talking about this year. We'll see about 2013 as we get closer but everything that I've heard about it is that it's supposed to be better than this year so that is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
We traded our 5th in this years draft not next years, so not sure why you even bring it up. Getting a top 50 pick next year imo is great, time will tell, but for me personally i'm very excited to see what happens by next June as the '13 could end up being a truely great one, clearly though a lot can happen between now and then since we are talking about 16/17 year olds, since we just saw that for this draft class but things change quickly when talking about future draft classes.
Getting a top 50 is great. Nobody would say otherwise. But it's less than we should've gotten for Cammy. And it's DEFINITELY less than we should've gotten if we're also saddling ourselves with Bourque in the process. You keep screaming "top 50" well it's definitely below 30... and that's unacceptable when you're trading away what we did and taking back a headache.

The whole point of taking on a problem child like Bourque would be so that we could get a higher pick. If you're not getting a first out of it, then there's not much point in making the trade when you're giving up the better player. Esp when his contract is shorter and the other team is in desperation mode.

Seriously... we didn't even LOOK at other options. We just traded Cammy in the most knee jerk reaction we possibly could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
We'll see what the flames paid, Ramo is under contract in the KHL so there's no telling if he will come over or not and the fans might not be so happy to see their team pay Cammy 7M next year and give us a top 50 pick if they miss the playoffs again. It was a good gamble for them if it pays off since he was good for them in the past but having him at such a high salary and missing the playoffs while giving up youth won't be so fun if things don't work out for them next season.
The Flames had little risk here. They gave up next to nothing, got the better player, got a prospect to offset the one they gave away and rid themselves of a headache. They could deal away Cammy tomorrow for a 2nd and still be ahead of the game for the simple reason that they managed to dump a seemingly untradeable player on us.

Good for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
I think you are in dreamland if you think money doesn't matter.
Sure it matters. But building towards a cup is PG's job (or at least it used to be.) His inability to improve our fortunes in that regard is the reason why he got canned. And again, we got stuck with a uselss player who's got an even LONGER contract so it negates much of the savings you're talking about. There are already people talking about eating Bourque's contract and sending him to the minors (just like Gomez) and if that happens have we really saved any money at all?

It's about opportunity cost. What we COULD'VE gotten instead. We didn't even look.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2012, 11:42 AM
  #272
Macbeth
Registered User
 
Macbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Petite-Patrie, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Saying that Cammy couldn't be moved for anything else is BS. And I'm not "warping" anything here. The reality is that players get traded all the time with contracts far larger and longer than Cammy's. Plus... we had cap room to spare so there's NO reason why we couldn't make something happen. So please don't try to sell this silly argument because it's patently silly.
I am glad you acknowledge your batdung craziness by indulging in countless retorts about this and that and how this and that is utter "BS" and proven "BS" by warped reasoning.

Nobody has ever said that Cammalleri couldn't be moved for anything else.

You can claim there was/is a better deal out there for a player like him.

Or you can see the writing on the wall : how the trade was done is immaterial, because whenever big contracts of quality players are moved they are within very obvious parameters that include quality and usefulness as well as cap hit flexibility.

Marek Zdlicky, a player of almost negative value, was moved for about the same package (relatively speaking) that Cammalleri went for; they were big contract players whose lack of performance sank their value so much they were traded for middling prospects and players.

You can move a Mike Richards for a ransom, and so can you Jeff Carter, and Jack Johnson, because they are highly valued players.

Everyone was taking a dump on Cammalleri prior to his trade; d'you figure we were the only ones seeing the half-hassed effort, the character flaws, the whining, etc.. ?

And, finally, we might have the cap space - we might, but other teams might not, and others yet might be working on a budget... and you still don't get it.

Macbeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2012, 12:50 PM
  #273
montreal
Moderator
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Greenland
Posts: 26,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Getting a top 50 is great. Nobody would say otherwise. But it's less than we should've gotten for Cammy. And it's DEFINITELY less than we should've gotten if we're also saddling ourselves with Bourque in the process. You keep screaming "top 50" well it's definitely below 30... and that's unacceptable when you're trading away what we did and taking back a headache.

The whole point of taking on a problem child like Bourque would be so that we could get a higher pick. If you're not getting a first out of it, then there's not much point in making the trade when you're giving up the better player. Esp when his contract is shorter and the other team is in desperation mode.

Seriously... we didn't even LOOK at other options. We just traded Cammy in the most knee jerk reaction we possibly could.

The Flames had little risk here. They gave up next to nothing, got the better player, got a prospect to offset the one they gave away and rid themselves of a headache. They could deal away Cammy tomorrow for a 2nd and still be ahead of the game for the simple reason that they managed to dump a seemingly untradeable player on us.

Good for them.

Sure it matters. But building towards a cup is PG's job (or at least it used to be.) His inability to improve our fortunes in that regard is the reason why he got canned. And again, we got stuck with a uselss player who's got an even LONGER contract so it negates much of the savings you're talking about. There are already people talking about eating Bourque's contract and sending him to the minors (just like Gomez) and if that happens have we really saved any money at all?

It's about opportunity cost. What we COULD'VE gotten instead. We didn't even look.
We'll see what the flames do with cammy, maybe they could get a 2nd for him, maybe not.

As for the top 50 pick I keep screaming about, (which i've never done btw, but you should know all about going on and on and on and on and on) I think you are hung on up the fact that is MUST be a 1st rounder, but imo you aren't taking in consideration that a top 50 pick or better depending on how the flames fair, could actually be better then a late 1st this year. It's all about prespective, and if '13 is as good as it might be then the Habs could be in very, very good shape as they could be looking at having 3 picks in the top 40 or better if the flames struggle. Granted a lot can happen between now and then so at this point it's a gamble but it's a gamble i like a lot as having 3 top 40 or top 50 picks in a strong draft is exciting.

I know you won't listen, I know you won't hear me, but try not thinking so much in absolutes. Say you got your coveted 1st rounder this year, but say this draft ends up being crap, it's not as good, but say we end up with the 37th overall pick next summer and the draft class ends up something like 2003. So as you keep banging the drum about how it must be 1st rounder, think more about what is the asset you are getting. We don't know fully yet, but it's shaping up nicely if things go our way it could end up being something very good for us. Or not, we'll find out in time though.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2012, 02:36 PM
  #274
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macbeth View Post
I am glad you acknowledge your batdung craziness by indulging in countless retorts about this and that and how this and that is utter "BS" and proven "BS" by warped reasoning.
As an aside, I just love the constant use of the word 'warp'. It really is a great adjective. I'm not even kidding, it just makes me laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macbeth View Post
Nobody has ever said that Cammalleri couldn't be moved for anything else.

You can claim there was/is a better deal out there for a player like him.

Or you can see the writing on the wall : how the trade was done is immaterial, because whenever big contracts of quality players are moved they are within very obvious parameters that include quality and usefulness as well as cap hit flexibility.

Marek Zdlicky, a player of almost negative value, was moved for about the same package (relatively speaking) that Cammalleri went for; they were big contract players whose lack of performance sank their value so much they were traded for middling prospects and players.

You can move a Mike Richards for a ransom, and so can you Jeff Carter, and Jack Johnson, because they are highly valued players.

Everyone was taking a dump on Cammalleri prior to his trade; d'you figure we were the only ones seeing the half-hassed effort, the character flaws, the whining, etc.. ?

And, finally, we might have the cap space - we might, but other teams might not, and others yet might be working on a budget... and you still don't get it.
Your argument would hold a lot more water if we didn't run out and dump the guy less than 24 hours after his comments in the middle of a game. So can either of us prove a negative? No. So let's look at the facts.

The very morning after Cammy's comments (and before the trade happened) there were tons of analysts talking about how Cammy would be in demand and how some clubs were dying for scoring. This was on both TSN and Sportsnet. Everyone on those panels agreed that IF the Habs wanted to deal him that they could get a lot for him. You may not agree with their opinions but that's what they said - it's fact.

Another fact is the PG dealt Cammy in the middle of a game that we were supposedly deseperate to win to make the playoffs.

PG then followed up by saying - The deal was in the works. But he was waiting to have Bourque get through his suspension (because we had to make the playoffs) and that's why he held off. He then turns around and says that he HAD to make the trade in the middle of the game because it got finalized... and yet Bourque was STILL under suspension. So on the one hand he's saying we couldn't do it earlier because we HAD to make the playoffs and on the other he's saying that we HAD to do it right away (even in the middle of a 'must win' game against a Division Rival and even with Bourque STILL under suspension) because he couldn't risk Cammy getting injured. Those are facts.

PG is saying one thing, doing another and makes this trade without shopping him around. Absolutely nothing he said made any kind of rational sense.

And yet, you come here and continue to try to paint a picture that we HAD to make this trade and this is the best we could do. The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence suggests that this was a reactive knee jerk move exactly as I've said.

I can actually back up my opinion. It's plain as day what happened here and Bob Mackenzie himself said that it 'strains credulity' to believe that this wasn't a result of Cammy's comments. As for what we could've gotten for Cammy... I guess we'll never know because our idiot GM ran out and made this trade out of pettiness and desperation. We never even looked around and that's the sad part.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2012, 02:55 PM
  #275
Analyzer*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,999
vCash: 50
I see no one accounts for Bourque setting up his linemates and they **** it up ?

He screwed up a lot, but he set up his linemates who screwed up too.

Nope, just blame Bourque.

I hope he is traded so everyone will cry when we acquire another ****ing midget who's as productive but can't even defend himself.

Analyzer* 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 06:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.