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

Habs' off-season moves (all trades, proposals & free agent talk here) IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-29-2013, 02:06 PM
  #101
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
Fair, and a lot of people share this opinion, but then there's also a lot of people opposed to drafting this kind of player with one of our high picks (Bickell was picked 41st overall, don't forget)...so I'm just wondering how everyone is hoping to acquire these kinds of guys? It's like people want them, but don't want to give up the assets (a draft pick, cap space, a trading chip, etc) it would take to acquire them.
I wouldn't mind giving that type of money and more to guy like Clarksson, who, while isn't the best offensive player in the world has shown some ability to score goals and a top 6 rate. Giving 4 million to a guy like Bickell is absurd. It's amazing how we thought Cole was overpaid when he was signed.

Bickell at 3 million is more than fine, but at 4, it's just a sign of desperation. He doesn't help the offense problem up front.

Andy is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 02:10 PM
  #102
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft View Post
Kind of wish we'd gotten a young player back for Cole instead of Ryder.... Still a good trade, might not have even been an option.
Well, we got a 3rd rounder, and with Timmins at the helm there's a decent chance that becomes a good young player.

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 02:11 PM
  #103
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
They don't want to give up assets because in the end, that's how Montreal fans are. We are an hypocritical bunch who purposedly keep their eyes closed, and who please themselves in our team's current situations.

4M for Bickell might be well paid. Still, for a Malone-like player with some untapped potential and serious size, it's still a fair price. The only problem is, people actually don't want anything to do with fixing the size of our team. Because it would make them look absolutely stupid. After all, they've been advocating against this for so long...
Bickell and Malone are two different players. Malone scored 22 goals in his rookie season and 27 goals with Pittsburgh before his UFA year and followed it up with 26 goals the following season. Malone also has a much meaner streak than Bickell does.

Outside of his two latter years of junior, Bickell has never been that much of an offensive producer, even in the AHL. Giving 4 million to a guy just because he has size is stupid. At that point we should have just kept Erik Cole for 500k more. 4 million dollars for a top 9 player who produces at less than a .5ppg clip and at under a 20 goal a year clip is not a fair deal, it's bad cap management. Essentially you are paying a premium for a gamble on untapped potential, which may or may not come to fruition.

Andy is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 02:51 PM
  #104
Son Oncle Jerry
Formerly HiggsBozon
 
Son Oncle Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Bickell and Malone are two different players. Malone scored 22 goals in his rookie season and 27 goals with Pittsburgh before his UFA year and followed it up with 26 goals the following season. Malone also has a much meaner streak than Bickell does.

Outside of his two latter years of junior, Bickell has never been that much of an offensive producer, even in the AHL. Giving 4 million to a guy just because he has size is stupid. At that point we should have just kept Erik Cole for 500k more. 4 million dollars for a top 9 player who produces at less than a .5ppg clip and at under a 20 goal a year clip is not a fair deal, it's bad cap management. Essentially you are paying a premium for a gamble on untapped potential, which may or may not come to fruition.
Are you watching Chicago play in the playoffs? You say Bickell only has size on his size? THIS is a stupid thing to say. He's much more than that. We're paying 5M per season for a player who's 5'6 and who brings absolutely nothing besides a thrash goal here and there... all that while being apparently finished physically.

Bickell will score those trash goals, won't back down, and will hurt the Ds on the forecheck. He's also going to provide reliable two-way play and will be an imposing presence to help our talented forwards have some more time and space.

There are also HUGE differences between Bickell and Cole; Bickell is a far more physical presence both between and after the whistles, he's much younger, much more motivated, and is also bigger. He also probably won't cost as much, and won't sign for as long as Cole.

Son Oncle Jerry is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 02:53 PM
  #105
Son Oncle Jerry
Formerly HiggsBozon
 
Son Oncle Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I wouldn't mind giving that type of money and more to guy like Clarksson, who, while isn't the best offensive player in the world has shown some ability to score goals and a top 6 rate. Giving 4 million to a guy like Bickell is absurd. It's amazing how we thought Cole was overpaid when he was signed.

Bickell at 3 million is more than fine, but at 4, it's just a sign of desperation. He doesn't help the offense problem up front.
Again, when did we start having offensive production problems? Was it throughout the year, or was it when the games became tougher? Why did it happen there? Why couldn't we score those important goals anymore? Why did we allow that many?

We'll hit the same wall. You know what would be absurd? Follow the same recipe we did in the last several years, and sign Elias at 5M, having after that 10M commited to offensive, softish players on the wrong side of 30.

Son Oncle Jerry is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:16 PM
  #106
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
Again, when did we start having offensive production problems? Was it throughout the year, or was it when the games became tougher? Why did it happen there? Why couldn't we score those important goals anymore? Why did we allow that many?

We'll hit the same wall. You know what would be absurd? Follow the same recipe we did in the last several years, and sign Elias at 5M, having after that 10M commited to offensive, softish players on the wrong side of 30.
I'm not advocating signing Elias. What I am advocating is not falling into the same trap of overpaying players beyond their production for the sake of filling a hole. If Bickell costs 3 fine, but 4 million dollars for a 15 goal scorer because he is 6'4 is stupidity. Overpaying players in the past doesn't justify overpaying them now.

If that occurs will hit the same wall of having too many players being paid beyond their worth and always close to the cap ceiling.

Why did we score less, why did we allow more? Like I said, it's a convo that goes beyond just size, which is what your insinuating. The question, is why did when the games tougher why did two rookies, one of which is one of our smaller players, the other is a light 19 year old do most of the scoring...was it because of size or was it because they were talented players playing at 100%? Or was it their size. The size argument is too simplistic. Do we need for it to be improved...yes...are there options on the UFA market...yes plenty...should we pay a premium for it...depends. In case of Bickell no...for a Clarkson, I wouldn't mind an overpayment.

Andy is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:26 PM
  #107
Son Oncle Jerry
Formerly HiggsBozon
 
Son Oncle Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I'm not advocating signing Elias. What I am advocating is not falling into the same trap of overpaying players beyond their production for the sake of filling a hole. If Bickell costs 3 fine, but 4 million dollars for a 15 goal scorer because he is 6'4 is stupidity. Overpaying players in the past doesn't justify overpaying them now.

If that occurs will hit the same wall of having too many players being paid beyond their worth and always close to the cap ceiling.

Why did we score less, why did we allow more? Like I said, it's a convo that goes beyond just size, which is what your insinuating. The question, is why did when the games tougher why did two rookies, one of which is one of our smaller players, the other is a light 19 year old do most of the scoring...was it because of size or was it because they were talented players playing at 100%? Or was it their size. The size argument is too simplistic. Do we need for it to be improved...yes...are there options on the UFA market...yes plenty...should we pay a premium for it...depends. In case of Bickell no...for a Clarkson, I wouldn't mind an overpayment.
Like I said in another post... Bieksa is around the same height/size as Gorges. Still, our team would be much more efficient and much more physical, thanks to his attitude.

Galchenyuk and Gallagher had this "attitude". And it takes much more than talent to have it. We need size and toughness. And saying Bickell brings nothing but size is definitely a very reductionist way of judging him.

Son Oncle Jerry is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:28 PM
  #108
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
I'm not advocating signing Elias. What I am advocating is not falling into the same trap of overpaying players beyond their production for the sake of filling a hole. If Bickell costs 3 fine, but 4 million dollars for a 15 goal scorer because he is 6'4 is stupidity. Overpaying players in the past doesn't justify overpaying them now.

If that occurs will hit the same wall of having too many players being paid beyond their worth and always close to the cap ceiling.

Why did we score less, why did we allow more? Like I said, it's a convo that goes beyond just size, which is what your insinuating. The question, is why did when the games tougher why did two rookies, one of which is one of our smaller players, the other is a light 19 year old do most of the scoring...was it because of size or was it because they were talented players playing at 100%? Or was it their size. The size argument is too simplistic. Do we need for it to be improved...yes...are there options on the UFA market...yes plenty...should we pay a premium for it...depends. In case of Bickell no...for a Clarkson, I wouldn't mind an overpayment.
It isnt necessarily size, its more to do with aggression and motivation. Keep in mind too that they were "fresher". Another Prust type is needed in the bottom 6. Bickell fits that style. Clarkson will want a massive payday, Bickell could be signed for less than half of Clarkson, and provide similar numbers offensively, but is younger and more aggressive and determined on the forecheck. He would also be a better fit long term.

Halifaxhab* is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:29 PM
  #109
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
Like I said in another post... Bieksa is around the same height/size as Gorges. Still, our team would be much more efficient and much more physical, thanks to his attitude.

Galchenyuk and Gallagher had this "attitude". And it takes much more than talent to have it. We need size and toughness. And saying Bickell brings nothing but size is definitely a very reductionist way of judging him.
So now it's attitude and now just size...so now our analysis gets that much more complex than just size.

Where did I say Bickell brings not but size? Read properly. I said paying Bickell 4 million just for size is not a good investment. 4 million for a top 9 forward is too much.

Andy is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:34 PM
  #110
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyrettaBlaze View Post
Some guy on TSN 690: Markov + Plekanec for Byfuglien...
I would do that even it would be painful.

Kimota is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:36 PM
  #111
Son Oncle Jerry
Formerly HiggsBozon
 
Son Oncle Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
So now it's attitude and now just size...so now our analysis gets that much more complex than just size.

Where did I say Bickell brings not but size? Read properly. I said paying Bickell 4 million just for size is not a good investment. 4 million for a top 9 forward is too much.
Yet, we're paying Gionta 5M. Instead of paying midgets who bring almost nothing to a team 5M, what about we actually get some guys who plug some holes.

4M is high for Bickell. But for the right team, it would be a fair investment. He brings size, good hockey skills and decent offensive abilities. He also is tough and seems like he's having a breakout in those playoffs.

And I never said it was "all about size". But to say that we would be paying Bickell 4M a year JUST because he has good size is not fair. We would get a good secondary contributor, a tough customer, and a versatile player who can play several style of games. He also would fit the mold of this team much more than Gionta, who has to score on the rush to be useful at all.

Son Oncle Jerry is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:39 PM
  #112
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I would do that even it would be painful.
I would say there is around a 0% chance that Plekanec and Markov would agree to be traded to Winnipeg, so wouldn't that more or less nix the trade and if we're trading them it should be to get younger.

Frozenice is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:39 PM
  #113
Andy
Moderator
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
Yet, we're paying Gionta 5M. Instead of paying midgets who bring almost nothing to a team 5M, what about we actually get some guys who plug some holes.

4M is high for Bickell. But for the right team, it would be a fair investment. He brings size, good hockey skills and decent offensive abilities. He also is tough and seems like he's having a breakout in those playoffs.

And I never said it was "all about size". But to say that we would be paying Bickell 4M a year JUST because he has good size is not fair. We would get a good secondary contributor, a tough customer, and a versatile player who can play several style of games. He also would fit the mold of this team much more than Gionta, who has to score on the rush to be useful at all.
Overpaying in the past is not a justification for overpaying now. Both are overpayments.

Bickell is a top 9 player. We're paying 4 million for a tertiary scorer. It's a risk. 3 million max for this type of player. Reminds me of the Joel Ward overpayment because he has a good playoffs as well. Bickell has done little offensively to justify giving him 4 million. If we do, we should have just kept Erik Cole, even though they aren't similar players.

Andy is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:43 PM
  #114
Son Oncle Jerry
Formerly HiggsBozon
 
Son Oncle Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Overpaying in the past is not a justification for overpaying now. Both are overpayments.

Bickell is a top 9 player. We're paying 4 million for a tertiary scorer. It's a risk. 3 million max for this type of player. Reminds me of the Joel Ward overpayment because he has a good playoffs as well. Bickell has done little offensively to justify giving him 4 million. If we do, we should have just kept Erik Cole, even though they aren't similar players.
If we're paying 4M to Bickell, we should have kept Erik Cole... but they're not similar...
Where the hell is the logic in that?

Bickell at 4M would be a much better investment than Gionta at 5. Then again, I don't expect you to criticize our 21, C-wearing princess.

Have a good day.

Son Oncle Jerry is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:48 PM
  #115
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
I would say there is around a 0% chance that Plekanec and Markov would agree to be traded to Winnipeg, so wouldn't that more or less nix the trade and if we're trading them it should be to get younger.
Big Buff is not an old farth, as far as I know.

Kimota is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:57 PM
  #116
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
Yet, we're paying Gionta 5M. Instead of paying midgets who bring almost nothing to a team 5M, what about we actually get some guys who plug some holes.

4M is high for Bickell. But for the right team, it would be a fair investment. He brings size, good hockey skills and decent offensive abilities. He also is tough and seems like he's having a breakout in those playoffs.

And I never said it was "all about size". But to say that we would be paying Bickell 4M a year JUST because he has good size is not fair. We would get a good secondary contributor, a tough customer, and a versatile player who can play several style of games. He also would fit the mold of this team much more than Gionta, who has to score on the rush to be useful at all.
I don't understand how you can say Gionta brings nothing to the team. He finished 2 goals back from the team lead and brings lots of intangibles. He scored 55% more goals than Bickell did this season, so if we are replacing Gionta with Bickell we are likely taking a step back.

Sorinth is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 03:59 PM
  #117
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 34,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
Yet, we're paying Gionta 5M. Instead of paying midgets who bring almost nothing to a team 5M, what about we actually get some guys who plug some holes.

4M is high for Bickell. But for the right team, it would be a fair investment. He brings size, good hockey skills and decent offensive abilities. He also is tough and seems like he's having a breakout in those playoffs.

And I never said it was "all about size". But to say that we would be paying Bickell 4M a year JUST because he has good size is not fair. We would get a good secondary contributor, a tough customer, and a versatile player who can play several style of games. He also would fit the mold of this team much more than Gionta, who has to score on the rush to be useful at all.
Yet you make it ALL about size when you say Gionta "who bring almost nothing to a team". Pretty hard to respect somebody's opinion when they think on that level. It shows a huge lack of knowledge and understanding of pro hockey.

You turn Bickell into some kind of superhero and completely ignore the "small" guys that carry their team or at least paly big minutes like Kane Keith Leddy Oduya Bolland etc

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:10 PM
  #118
My Velouria
roygbiv
 
My Velouria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,517
vCash: 500
@EricOnSportsLaw:
Michael Ryder looking to rent house in Montreal for 3 months; more if re-signs with Habs; so interest in staying; but is interest shared?

Don't like the sound of this..

My Velouria is online now  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:11 PM
  #119
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiggsBozon View Post
If we're paying 4M to Bickell, we should have kept Erik Cole... but they're not similar...
Where the hell is the logic in that?

Bickell at 4M would be a much better investment than Gionta at 5. Then again, I don't expect you to criticize our 21, C-wearing princess.

Have a good day.
Gionta is a steady 25 goal per season kind of player, he had two injuries here, is maybe overpaid about 1M, but he was a ufa, and you pay a premium for those types. But to say he's a poor investment means you look only at his physical size and not his play. If you dislike Gionta, you must hate Gallagher who plays the exact same way.

We can definately use bickell, but you cant compare the two. Its an apples/oranges comparison.

Halifaxhab* is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:11 PM
  #120
Draft
Registered User
 
Draft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft View Post
With the talk regarding the upcoming draft, a common theme is - Pick BPA regardless and trade for deficiencies or need later. Considering our prospect pool, we have a large group of very similar higher-end prospects. Kristo, Hudon, Bozon, and Collberg all play similar styles and bring the same benefits. Ellis, Nygren, Beaulieu, Dietz, Bennett, and ~Thrower all bring similar games. Leblanc, Bournival, Dumont, Nattinen, Vail, and Macmillan all have similar abilities or bring similar styles.

Feel free to disagree where players fit, I'm sure you get the point.

Who are players/prospects we can target to fill our deficiencies and who is available? My favourite trading piece is Kristo (just not a fan). Klingberg, Chiasson, Caron, Matteau etc. are the type of players I think would benefit the team in some way or another.

Thoughts/ideas?
So, with the whole size discussion and the 'what are big players worth, we won't give anything up for them'...... No one liked this idea? I see it as a real possibility for Bergevin this offseason. Make a statement without compromising the current roster or the long-term health of the club. Too long-term for people to get on board, not exciting enough?

Why overpay for the players in Free Agency? Develop them in our system instead.

Draft is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:14 PM
  #121
My Velouria
roygbiv
 
My Velouria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,517
vCash: 500
Guys... $4M for Bryan Bickell? $4 MILLION for Bryan Bickell? Is this real life?

My Velouria is online now  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:21 PM
  #122
Dr Gonzo
#1 Jan Bulis Fan
 
Dr Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bat Country
Posts: 4,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyrettaBlaze View Post
Guys... $4M for Bryan Bickell? $4 MILLION for Bryan Bickell? Is this real life?
I'm with ya.

Where did this $4M number come from anyways?

Dr Gonzo is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:24 PM
  #123
Son Oncle Jerry
Formerly HiggsBozon
 
Son Oncle Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
I'm with ya.

Where did this $4M number come from anyways?
Ask Andy.

Son Oncle Jerry is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:47 PM
  #124
Analyzer*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,973
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyrettaBlaze View Post
@EricOnSportsLaw:
Michael Ryder looking to rent house in Montreal for 3 months; more if re-signs with Habs; so interest in staying; but is interest shared?

Don't like the sound of this..
Terrible.

3.5 for Bickell is the most I'd want to see.

Analyzer* is offline  
Old
05-29-2013, 04:57 PM
  #125
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyrettaBlaze View Post
@EricOnSportsLaw:
Michael Ryder looking to rent house in Montreal for 3 months; more if re-signs with Habs; so interest in staying; but is interest shared?

Don't like the sound of this..
You're not alone on this one.

I'm really start to wonder about Bergevin, I'm hoping it's not a repeat of the Gainey/Gauthier/Martin era where we sign a bunch of mediocre players to longer term deals then they should get and when we wake up in a year or two from now we realize it was all a mistake.

Frozenice is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.