Trading Bourque right now would be a panic move and a bad one.
So you trade him and get very little in return, then have to turn around and try and sign a similar player and end up paying more while he has a big bounce back year elswhere.
At 3.3 mil I think he is a good fit with Eller on the 3rd line, gives him the proper "kick in the pants" to bounce back and it provides depth for the top 6 if somebody gets hurt or isn't producing. You leave the DD line intact. Fine a skilled winger for Plekanec and Gionta and stick Moen(or UFA) with Eller and Bourque.
Yeah, well, we have vastly different opinions of Bourque, then. I'm pretty sure I could sign a player as good (better) for about half the salary. Take Travis Moen. I'm confident he's a better player than Bourque. As one example. Amongst hundreds in the league. This is because I think Bourque, fundamentally, is a terrible player. Maybe he has not always been. And maybe it's unfair to judge based on half a season with us. But I've had that impression in the past too. This half season has just put a few exclamation points at the end of it.
He's very welcome to have his "big bounce back year elsewhere", afaic. Best of luck to him and his new team with that.
There's no panic in that. It's a measured observation of his utter futility as a hockey player for us, and a solidified belief in his undesirability as a component of our team moving forward.
But I also don't think anybody gives us that 3rd or 7th round pick for him anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. I'm not yet at the point of wanting to stick negative value onto him with a buyout. I predict I'll be there next summer, however.
Yeah, well, we have vastly different opinions of Bourque, then. I'm pretty sure I could sign a player as good (better) for about half the salary. Take Travis Moen. I'm confident he's a better player than Bourque. As one example. Amongst hundreds in the league. This is because I think Bourque, fundamentally, is a terrible player. Maybe he has not always been. And maybe it's unfair to judge based on half a season with us. But I've had that impression in the past too. This half season has just put a few exclamation points at the end of it.
He's very welcome to have his "big bounce back year elsewhere", afaic. Best of luck to him and his new team with that.
There's no panic in that. It's a measured observation of his utter futility as a hockey player for us, and a solidified belief in his undesirability as a component of our team moving forward.
But I also don't think anybody gives us that 3rd or 7th round pick for him anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. I'm not yet at the point of wanting to stick negative value onto him with a buyout. I predict I'll be there next summer, however.
To trade him away now for anything is panic. It's narrow minded, too.
A 6'2 guy, who has a nice wrister playig 3rd line minutes who was looking more comfortable near the end has value. Calgary fans and hab fans say he's sucked, but the guy still scored 18 goals.
This whole "he had a huge minus" So did Tomas Plekanec. You know, our supposed best defensive forward. Why aren't you harping on him ?.
His 18 goals is still 3rd on the team.
I thought he did a nice job on the pk. He had some chances to score, but screwed up on and setup teammates to score, but they screwed up. He and Eller look like a good combo, both 5 on 5 and 4 on 5.
People can't tell me this didn't get them excited. He's a tough kid and can fight if need be.
The team sucked as a whole. Come TDL if Bourque has scored 5 goals while getting 15+ minutes a night with regular and competent linemates, then ship his ass out.
Its not "to bourque or not to bourque", you have to bourque.
He's got multiple years on his deal. He's going to be tough to move unless you do something like Calgary did and take on a big salary of an underperformer. You have to bite the bullet and hope he comes back next year and plays closer to his capabilities. As bad as he was for the habs last year, I know for a fact that he can do better. Maybe a new voice and a fresh start next year is exactly the tonic he requires to get more out of himself.
He frustrates me because when you saw his first couple of games, he was pumping his feet, driving the net with a purpose, and hitting bodies. We need a coach who can drive that into him on a regular basis. That's easier said then done, of course.
Yeah, well, we have vastly different opinions of Bourque, then. I'm pretty sure I could sign a player as good (better) for about half the salary. Take Travis Moen. I'm confident he's a better player than Bourque. As one example. Amongst hundreds in the league. This is because I think Bourque, fundamentally, is a terrible player. Maybe he has not always been. And maybe it's unfair to judge based on half a season with us. But I've had that impression in the past too. This half season has just put a few exclamation points at the end of it.
He's very welcome to have his "big bounce back year elsewhere", afaic. Best of luck to him and his new team with that.
There's no panic in that. It's a measured observation of his utter futility as a hockey player for us, and a solidified belief in his undesirability as a component of our team moving forward.
But I also don't think anybody gives us that 3rd or 7th round pick for him anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. I'm not yet at the point of wanting to stick negative value onto him with a buyout. I predict I'll be there next summer, however.
I didn't see him with the Flames, but I do wonder how did this guy get back to back 27 goal seasons the last 2 years, with 108 points in 153 games. When you look at what he did with the Habs compared to the flames this season (since he played 38 games for both teams) it's like he went from struggling with the Flames to complete crap with with us as his goal production dropped from 13 to 5
That said if he can return to anything close to the 27 goal, 50+ point guy I don't have a problem with him but with the way he looked with us, I don't see it happening as I thought he looked terrible with us and just disinterested. I'd still give him a shot to see if he can rebound next year, as we have a lot of problems so I'd like to see other issues addressed first like a better coach, improve the D, ect...
I didn't see him with the Flames, but I do wonder how did this guy get back to back 27 goal seasons the last 2 years, with 108 points in 153 games. When you look at what he did with the Habs compared to the flames this season (since he played 38 games for both teams) it's like he went from struggling with the Flames to complete crap with with us as his goal production dropped from 13 to 5
That said if he can return to anything close to the 27 goal, 50+ point guy I don't have a problem with him but with the way he looked with us, I don't see it happening as I thought he looked terrible with us and just disinterested. I'd still give him a shot to see if he can rebound next year, as we have a lot of problems so I'd like to see other issues addressed first like a better coach, improve the D, ect...
The problem is that it's a bargain that has a 50/50 chance of either landing on a positive side or a negative one. If the new GM can be pro-active on the UFA market and find a suitable replacement I say ship him away for little.
The problem is that it's a bargain that has a 50/50 chance of either landing on a positive side or a negative one. If the new GM can be pro-active on the UFA market and find a suitable replacement I say ship him away for little.
well he has a limited NTC so that might not even be possible, especially considering the season he just had. I hope the new GM doesn't make the same UFA mistakes that Gainey did, we need to fix the problems not band aid them again and hope we can limp into 8th place.
The problem is that it's a bargain that has a 50/50 chance of either landing on a positive side or a negative one. If the new GM can be pro-active on the UFA market and find a suitable replacement I say ship him away for little.
ryan smith, alexandre semin, zach parise, kristian huselius, jason blake
Okay they're not all really realistic choices and they might sign with their teams, but there's some room to maneuver.
Blake is old and sucks. You and others will complain about lack of size, or the remote presnece of toughness. The plus side on him is he drives the net pretty fearlessly. He should retire.
Semin would cost 7 mill...
Parise would be nice, but he'd cost 7 mill+
Huselius.41 games in the past 2 years for a grand total of 4 hits over that course. Once again, everyone will cry about lack of physicality.
Smyth will stay with Edmonton, or retire.
So, I ask. Where can we get a player who can score 20 goals, be somewhat physical, add size and sign for 3.5 mill, or less.
People want him gone for next to nothing, but don't have any plans to replace him ?
Maybe we can get that fat **** Penner to sign for some crepes.
Blake is old and sucks. You and others will complain about lack of size, or the remote presnece of toughness. The plus side on him is he drives the net pretty fearlessly. He should retire.
Semin would cost 7 mill...
Parise would be nice, but he'd cost 7 mill+
Huselius.41 games in the past 2 years for a grand total of 4 hits over that course. Once again, everyone will cry about lack of physicality.
Smyth will stay with Edmonton, or retire.
So, I ask. Where can we get a player who can score 20 goals, be somewhat physical, add size and sign for 3.5 mill, or less.
People want him gone for next to nothing, but don't have any plans to replace him ?
Maybe we can get that fat **** Penner to sign for some crepes.
You gonna get another underachiever for Bourque.
Let's try Chris Stewart in St-Louis or Havlat in SJ
So, I ask. Where can we get a player who can score 20 goals, be somewhat physical, add size and sign for 3.5 mill, or less.
People want him gone for next to nothing, but don't have any plans to replace him ?
I think it's wrong to say we need to get somebody who can score 20 goals or be somewhat physical or have size or whatnot to "replace" him. It doesn't have to be an avatar/clone of what we dearly wish he might be. There are better players than him who will get just 10 goals, or who might be 5'10" tall, or fractions of a $7M player who his salary could help pay for and ultimately provide us a far better return.
The bottom line for me is that Bourque isn't a good player and I don't want him on my team. A comparable would be Benoit Pouliot. Or Wojtech Wolski. Yes, in some form, they have some redeeming traits, after all they made it to the NHL. And they may have had periods of greater or lesser success during their time as well. But I'm not looking back to those times or ahead to optimistic hopes for future times, because they've been bad enough in the present times to convince me that it's a bad investment. Sometimes a bad investment does pay off. But I'd rather not have to be stuck with that longshot hope if I don't have to.
Here are some forwards I'd rather have than Bourque who are free agents this summer: Travis Moen, Brandon Prust, Zach Parise, Alex Semin, Ray Whitney, Saku Koivu, Paul Gaustad, Chris Kelly, Jarret Stoll, Andrei Kostitsyn, Shane Doan, Jaromir Jag, David Jones... there are probably dozens of others. They fit all kinds of different player types and price ranges. Replacing Bourque is simply not a challenge. You take a 7th round pick if any team offers it, and run. And you try to sign players you actually want in whatever roles you have left to fill.
If a team comes with an interesting offer (more than a 2nd or worst), yeah I would move him right when the trading season re-opens. Otherwise you'd need to give him at least 20 games with the new staff. You never know, maybe he'll suddenly get motivated by the new system or the new GM.
(Lets get a sexy top model vixen as the GM, and move the responsabilities around
I think it's wrong to say we need to get somebody who can score 20 goals or be somewhat physical or have size or whatnot to "replace" him. It doesn't have to be an avatar/clone of what we dearly wish he might be. There are better players than him who will get just 10 goals, or who might be 5'10" tall, or fractions of a $7M player who his salary could help pay for and ultimately provide us a far better return.
The bottom line for me is that Bourque isn't a good player and I don't want him on my team. A comparable would be Benoit Pouliot. Or Wojtech Wolski. Yes, in some form, they have some redeeming traits, after all they made it to the NHL. And they may have had periods of greater or lesser success during their time as well. But I'm not looking back to those times or ahead to optimistic hopes for future times, because they've been bad enough in the present times to convince me that it's a bad investment. Sometimes a bad investment does pay off. But I'd rather not have to be stuck with that longshot hope if I don't have to.
Here are some forwards I'd rather have than Bourque who are free agents this summer: Travis Moen, Brandon Prust, Zach Parise, Alex Semin, Ray Whitney, Saku Koivu, Paul Gaustad, Chris Kelly, Jarret Stoll, Andrei Kostitsyn, Shane Doan, Jaromir Jag, David Jones... there are probably dozens of others. They fit all kinds of different player types and price ranges. Replacing Bourque is simply not a challenge. You take a 7th round pick if any team offers it, and run. And you try to sign players you actually want in whatever roles you have left to fill.
Agree completely. He's a bum. Pouliot and Wolski comparisons are so dead on. He shows flashes but at the end of the day he's a selfish player who has zero hockey sense. I'd even go as far to say that he makes other players around him worse. Yes, he scores (because all he does is shoot or turn the puck over), but he's so terrible everywhere else it's not worth it.
Just erase him from the team any way you can and move on.
If a team comes with an interesting offer (more than a 2nd or worst), yeah I would move him right when the trading season re-opens. Otherwise you'd need to give him at least 20 games with the new staff. You never know, maybe he'll suddenly get motivated by the new system or the new GM.
(Lets get a sexy top model vixen as the GM, and move the responsabilities around
This, if a good deal comes along take it, otherwise who knows, a 3rd line of Bourque-Eller-Leblanc/Moen/Whoever might work out well.
This, if a good deal comes along take it, otherwise who knows, a 3rd line of Bourque-Eller-Leblanc/Moen/Whoever might work out well.
Yeah but I really don't see his motivation picking with the thought of playing on a third line with two recruits. I know Eller will surprise everyone next year and that Leblanc will really begin his NHL career, but I'm afraid that may be jeopardized with a guy like Bourque that doesn't give a full effort every night. Bourque will not be a mentor to those two players and he won't be an example to fallow, there is many UFA's out there who may not have the potential to be as productive offensively but at least have the certainty to give a stronger effort than Rene Bourque.
Yeah but I really don't see his motivation picking with the thought of playing on a third line with two recruits. I know Eller will surprise everyone next year and that Leblanc will really begin his NHL career, but I'm afraid that may be jeopardized with a guy like Bourque that doesn't give a full effort every night. Bourque will not be a mentor to those two players and he won't be an example to fallow, there is many UFA's out there who may not have the potential to be as productive offensively but at least have the certainty to give a stronger effort than Rene Bourque.
It's not the job of pro hockey players to teach their linemates how to play hockey. It's nice when they do, but it's the coaches' job. If Eller really is a smart centre, he'll be able to use Bourque as the tool he is. Find open ice on the wings to get hit with passes, and rush the net when it gets in the zone, that's all he needs to do. If he's not putting in any effort that's a problem for coaches and management.
The guy's game is a bit flawed, he has talent to score 20-30 goals but is inconsistent and lacks in other aspects. That's why he is paid 3 million and not 6 million. He's a depth winger, he might work on the 3rd line with Eller, he might not, nobody can say for sure at this point.
It's not the job of pro hockey players to teach their linemates how to play hockey. It's nice when they do, but it's the coaches' job. If Eller really is a smart centre, he'll be able to use A. Kost. as the tool he is. Find open ice on the wings to get hit with passes, and rush the net when it gets in the zone, that's all he needs to do. If he's not putting in any effort that's a problem for coaches and management.
The guy's game is a bit flawed, he has talent to score 20-30 goals but is inconsistent and lacks in other aspects. That's why he is paid 3 million and not 6 million. He's a depth winger, he might work on the 3rd line with Eller, he might not, nobody can say for sure at this point.
See what I did there? Funny how "excuses" for keeping 30 year old Bourque seem to far outweigh the outcry for keeping 26 year old Kostitsyn, when the description, financials and expectations seem to be pretty much the same.
See what I did there? Funny how "excuses" for keeping 30 year old Bourque seem to far outweigh the outcry for keeping 26 year old Kostitsyn, when the description, financials and expectations seem to be pretty much the same.
Yeah and I would go as far as saying that trading bourque back for kostityn, in my opinion, would even be a good move.
I think it's wrong to say we need to get somebody who can score 20 goals or be somewhat physical or have size or whatnot to "replace" him. It doesn't have to be an avatar/clone of what we dearly wish he might be. There are better players than him who will get just 10 goals, or who might be 5'10" tall, or fractions of a $7M player who his salary could help pay for and ultimately provide us a far better return.
The bottom line for me is that Bourque isn't a good player and I don't want him on my team. A comparable would be Benoit Pouliot. Or Wojtech Wolski. Yes, in some form, they have some redeeming traits, after all they made it to the NHL. And they may have had periods of greater or lesser success during their time as well. But I'm not looking back to those times or ahead to optimistic hopes for future times, because they've been bad enough in the present times to convince me that it's a bad investment. Sometimes a bad investment does pay off. But I'd rather not have to be stuck with that longshot hope if I don't have to.
Here are some forwards I'd rather have than Bourque who are free agents this summer: Travis Moen, Brandon Prust, Zach Parise, Alex Semin, Ray Whitney, Saku Koivu, Paul Gaustad, Chris Kelly, Jarret Stoll, Andrei Kostitsyn, Shane Doan, Jaromir Jag, David Jones... there are probably dozens of others. They fit all kinds of different player types and price ranges. Replacing Bourque is simply not a challenge. You take a 7th round pick if any team offers it, and run. And you try to sign players you actually want in whatever roles you have left to fill.
Moen - Probably (hopefully re-sign him) Will be cheap around current contract, or less.
Prust - Would be nice, but he'll probably want to stay with the Rangers, otherwise I'd love him.
Parise - If trading Bourque meant signing him, I'd be all for it.
Semin - You talk about a lack of heart and determination and you want this guy ?He shows it at times, but not consistently and you'd get fed up with him.
Whitney - Still producing, but he's old. Don't really need more vets, do we ?
Koivu - Damn straight I'd take him back over anyone.
Gaustad - Probably a pipe dream. Also plays centre, he's less likely to be signed as we have more centre depth than winger depth. Doubt Gaustad signs to play 4th line Kelly - Would be nice. Look above at Gaustad. Also, probably likes it in Boston
Stoll - Kings want him gone for a 7th. Good faceoff guy, but other than that he's fallen off.
Akost - Everyone was fed up with his inconsistent play.
Doan - Doubt he comes here.
Jagr - Probably Philly, or retire. Slim chance with Pleks here.
Jones - Also inconsistent.
If getting rid of Bourque means an improvement, then I'm for it. I'm not going to deal him away after 30 games of meh play to some people. I could find you a 30 game stretch to show you Plekanec playing terrible. Would any of you want to deal him for a 7th ? Didn't think so.
To trade Bourque now for squat is foolish, narrow minded and short sighted.
Kovalev sucked when he first came here, too. Now people still love him and his ways.
See what I did there? Funny how "excuses" for keeping 30 year old Bourque seem to far outweigh the outcry for keeping 26 year old Kostitsyn, when the description, financials and expectations seem to be pretty much the same.
Bourque is here and has to be dealt with. If Julien could get useful mileage out of Pouliot, it suggests that a new coach might find a way (no guarantee, of course). In the meantime the Habs passed their own problem child on to Calgary. I'm sure the Flames are happy only in that they don't have Bourque. Cammalleri didn't help them make the playoffs. The Habs received a second rounder from a non-playoff team, which is a valuable consideration, as well as a potential depth player, so the trade could ultimately be very beneficial.
The only transaction I disapprove of is trading away AKost for less than the Habs should have gotten for him. That subtracted goals rather than adding them.
