If 40, why not 50? 60? Heck, let's look at how it all went down when there were only 6 teams.
Don't your understand the simple concept of evolution? Progress?
THINGS ARE NOT DONE THE SAME.
Don't tell me you know this but don't care. Tossing it aside makes your whole argument look worse than what comes out of my dog's arse.
Mentioning how Pollock operated is
Laughable.
Exactly...the days of a GM fleecing a top 5 pick out of another GM for an older player/vet just don't happen anymore...Pollock was a genius before his time, but 45 years later the rest of the GM's have caught on....only Burkie has fallen for this in the last few years, and at least he got a Kessell, not a older vet, and even still Burkie got burned big time....
I'm more ambivalent about the Kessel deal as most people, I think. Well, no, I also think it was a mistake, but not because it was a mistake to "trade away draft picks". It was a failure from Burke to evaluate his own team realistically. The key here is that Kessel was 21 when the trade happened, had just scored 30+ goals, and looked extremely likely to keep at least a 25+ goal pace; in effect, he was a #5 pick without the inherent risk that draft picks have.
Even if the Leafs weren't going to make the playoffs, trading two picks in the 10-15th overall range for Kessel would've been an excellent deal; there was low likelihood that either 10-15 pick becomes better than Kessel. So, if you assumed that the Leafs would be even vaguely competitive -- 20th in the league or so -- it was a perfectly reasonable deal. And Burke, apparently, thought his team was able to achieve at least that level of mediocrity.
The problem was that the Maple Leafs were terrible, predictably terrible, and there's a much higher likelihood that a top-2 pick will yield a player as good or better than Kessel. That's suddenly a much more expensive gamble for Burke.
If the Leafs had been better at the time of the trade, though, it would have been a good deal. Of course, if the Leafs had been better, Boston might not have wanted to deal in the first place.
Agreed mathman, obviously contending teams don't have a top pick, but a trade like rivet for Gorges late first (patches) is something this team hasn't done enough of. Letting players walk for nothing is something that should be avoided as much as possible. Obviously it would be harder to do when a team is competing for a playoff berth, but imo if the goal is to eventually win a cup, making a rivet for gorges patches type deal is gonna move you closer to that goal than getting 8th place in the conference, especially since the number of teams who won a cup as an 8th seed are zero. Obviously you need support of ownership to make a bold move like that.
I agree with moving soon to be UFAs that you don't really intend on re-signing, but there hasn't been a whole lot of those. Ryder and Koivu come to mind, but others like Kovalev, Souray, Komi, Hammer, were offered deals.
I disagreed with some decisions. I would have moved Souray and Ryder but that's it.
That isn't what's being discussed however. I don't consider this a rebuild through top 5 picks. It is more of a rebuild on the fly, which is what we've been doing already.
I agree with moving soon to be UFAs that you don't really intend on re-signing, but there hasn't been a whole lot of those. Ryder and Koivu come to mind, but others like Kovalev, Souray, Komi, Hammer, were offered deals.
I disagreed with some decisions. I would have moved Souray and Ryder but that's it.
That isn't what's being discussed however. I don't consider this a rebuild through top 5 picks. It is more of a rebuild on the fly, which is what we've been doing already.
streit, wiz
Some of the players you mentioned weren't offered contracts, there was just talking back and forth. We don't do a good job of managing UFAs because every year we're on the bubble and we keep them. We trade draft picks for Moore/Wiz and then don't resign them. This team is destined to be a middle of the pack team for a while unless some strategies change.
I'm more ambivalent about the Kessel deal as most people, I think. Well, no, I also think it was a mistake, but not because it was a mistake to "trade away draft picks". It was a failure from Burke to evaluate his own team realistically. The key here is that Kessel was 21 when the trade happened, had just scored 30+ goals, and looked extremely likely to keep at least a 25+ goal pace; in effect, he was a #5 pick without the inherent risk that draft picks have.
Even if the Leafs weren't going to make the playoffs, trading two picks in the 10-15th overall range for Kessel would've been an excellent deal; there was low likelihood that either 10-15 pick becomes better than Kessel. So, if you assumed that the Leafs would be even vaguely competitive -- 20th in the league or so -- it was a perfectly reasonable deal. And Burke, apparently, thought his team was able to achieve at least that level of mediocrity.
The problem was that the Maple Leafs were terrible, predictably terrible, and there's a much higher likelihood that a top-2 pick will yield a player as good or better than Kessel. That's suddenly a much more expensive gamble for Burke.
If the Leafs had been better at the time of the trade, though, it would have been a good deal. Of course, if the Leafs had been better, Boston might not have wanted to deal in the first place.
I agree again mathman, it wasn't really the assets giving up that make this deal a bad one. The timing was everything here and Burke over estimated the quality of team he had. The picks and younger more cost controlled guys would of been more valuable to the Leafs present situation, as it stands now, by the time the Leafs are competitive, Kessel will be a free agent. It was terrible timing on Burke's part. The assets giving are pretty close. Kessel is still most likely the best player to come out of that trade imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
Don't forget, you also can't assume a market exists. You may want to trade a guy, but contenders only have so many first-round picks.
I agree to an extent, but I think there is almost always a mrket for guys like Souray/Streit at that time. Obviously there is no market for Souray at the present, but I can't help but think there were a few teams who would of wanted that booming shot/toughness going down the stretch. The one time we did a move like this was Huet and it was really quite bizarre to be honest.
I agree to an extent, but I think there is almost always a mrket for guys like Souray/Streit at that time. Obviously there is no market for Souray at the present, but I can't help but think there were a few teams who would of wanted that booming shot/toughness going down the stretch. The one time we did a move like this was Huet and it was really quite bizarre to be honest.
Yes, and one of those teams was the Habs, battling for a playoff spot
Obviously there is no market for Souray at the present, but I can't help but think there were a few teams who would of wanted that booming shot/toughness going down the stretch.
Like, who? Everyone kept pointing to the San Jose Sharks, but they didn't need the PP boost and ended up trading for Rivet instead.
Keep in mind, he may have been the bomb on the PP (literally!), but Souray's 5-on-5 play was, ahem, very suspect. And Souray's shot did not come in a nicely-packaged kit with Andrei Markov, also making the PP boost questionable.
Like, who? Everyone kept pointing to the San Jose Sharks, but they didn't need the PP boost and ended up trading for Rivet instead.
Keep in mind, he may have been the bomb on the PP (literally!), but Souray's 5-on-5 play was, ahem, very suspect. And Souray's shot did not come in a nicely-packaged kit with Andrei Markov, also making the PP boost questionable.
I believe Zhitnik was trade to Atlanta for Coburn. I believe we could have offered Souray for the same.
For everyone trying to convince us that we need more Top 5 picks, don't you mean we need Top 5 talent? Who cares where someone was picked. Having # 4 overall Benoit Pouliot on the team didn't do much for us.
Montreal already has 3 guys who in retrospect probably should have been Top 5 picks:
Carey Price - actually was picked # 5 overall
PK Subban - when all is said and done he'll probably be at worst Top 5 from the 2007 draft class
Andrei Markov - I really can't find 5 players from the 1998 draft I'd take before Markov.
Three guys with top-5 talent. Add in some more young guys (Eller, Pacioretty) and some talented vets (Gionta, Cammy, Pleks, Cole, Gorges) and we're in really good shape. Complaining that we don't dismantle our team every year to try to stockpile a few more draft picks under the misguided assumption that (1) those trades can land us top 5 picks and (2) those top 5 picks are guaranteed stars is nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
Don't forget, you also can't assume a market exists. You may want to trade a guy, but contenders only have so many first-round picks.
And they're certainly not spending any of their first round picks on Michael Ryder, in the midst of a 14-goal season where he was often a healthy scratch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
Like, who? Everyone kept pointing to the San Jose Sharks, but they didn't need the PP boost and ended up trading for Rivet instead.
Keep in mind, he may have been the bomb on the PP (literally!), but Souray's 5-on-5 play was, ahem, very suspect. And Souray's shot did not come in a nicely-packaged kit with Andrei Markov, also making the PP boost questionable.
Everyone was also pointing to Anaheim at the time. Brian Burke was on record about hating trade deadline deals and was bragging about responding to trade proposals with "a profanity". To sum up, he was and still is a jerk, and was very unlikely to part with a 1st round pick for Souray, especially with Pronger and Niedermayer on the back end.
But let's say Gainey did pry the 2007 1st round pick from Anaheim for Souray. That picked turned into..... Logan MacMillan. Hooray.
Now let's sasy Burke wouldn't do Souray straight up for a 1st, so Montreal throws in their own 2nd round pick to sweeten the deal. Souray + 2nd for Anaheim 1st. Still a great deal, right? Montreal picked PK Subban in the 2nd round that year.
Swapping old guys for picks is not always a home run.
Not really the premise is the same. Every year there are contending teams willing to overpay for what they think are improvements enough to put them over the top. Every, single year this still happens.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga
-The Cup winning teams that did use the rebuild route won the Cup whereas their best players were under their ELC. They both have to suck for more than 4-5 years to win the Cup.
With the cap, you really have to suck horribly to be in the cellar for that long. And you have to wonder why you are there for that long, by the way, which means that something is wrong etc...
Important point, both teams were sucking before the lockout, and not only after. Now, i think its impossible, with the parity on the league, to catch that many (4-5) high picks without a problem in the team/organization.
-"The success rate of ANY strategy is low." Except that the downside of that route are really problematic, if you dont succeed.
If you dont succeed with a slow process, you're still playing in PO on a consistent basis. Or sometimes. From a business point of view, its at least safe. If you fail your rebuild, you've lost an entire decade. And its hard to recover from such a thing.
-Teams dont trade high picks that often. We only see bets (just like Columbus or Colorado's one) or swaps. You have to wait the 20th overall pick and the top-10 teams in the league to see really some deals that a rebuilding team can do without needing luck.
-We underestimate the value of the veterans. The pick may break out, but no one knows if he will...
(What follows is theoritical, and im not drunk.)
Lets talk about Gionta for instance.
I think that given his abilities, his intangibles, his production etc, he's probably good enough to be around the 170-180th best player in the league.
Around 90-110 forwards better than him, around 50-70 defenseman better than him, around 20 goalies better than him.
Hard to represent this, but we can only focus on forwards if needed.
The average age of a NHL player is 27, i think. You're drafted at 18, that means 9 different entry drafts.
Divide 100 (his spot on forwards around the league) by 9, it gives you 11.
I think that a player like Gionta is very probably good enough to be the 11th forward drafted in a draft class.
Which gives you a draft spot between the 18th and 24th pick, normally.
Is a 20th overall pick likely to give you a player better than Gionta ?
When we look at the last entry drafts, its not sure at all.
Look, you can dress Gionta up all you want. He's not good enough to lead us to a cup. That doesn't mean he's a bad player or useless but when you don't already have a winning core, he's not going to do much for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freaky Habs Fan
The GMs were not stupid, but they were not as knowledgeable as today. The draft wasn't that important for many teams. Pollock knew he was able to build team with good draft picks so that's why he had an edge over other GMs. Back then, getting a high draft pick was much more easier.
Now, it's a whole different story. Most of the teams wants to build through the draft. The bad teams understand they should be bad for a few years and then become good (Pittsburgh, Chicago...a few years ago)(Edmonton, NY Islander now...).
A few years ago, it was possible to get a 1st for a rental player, but not so much anymore. You now get a second round pick. Why? Because teams want to keep their first...even if it's in the 20ies. And you still believe it's not that hard to get a top 5 pick? If it's the case, I don't know what to say. Most teams in the top 5 don't even want to trade down a few spots because they want X player. But of course, it's not impossible...but you would have to pay a premium to get one...and that's Subban or someone like him. Those teams want quality over quantity, which make those trade REALLY hard.
And I'm pretty sure Gauthier is calling quite a few team on draft week to get a better pick...
And think about it, how many high draft picks were traded in the past few years? In the last draft, Columbus traded their 7th overall pick, but for Jeff Carter. Sure they added Voracek, but the 7th pick was still the most valuable asset in the trade, again, for JEFF CARTER.
1st round picks are always available. Washington did it AGAIN this year. They've already traded for three 1st rounders previously, one of whom turned into Mike Green.
You have to be willing to give up players of value to get them though. And if a club like Washington for example is in the hunt for the cup, they'll be more likely to deal picks and prospects away for the final piece that gets them a cup. That's the right way to do things and those are the kinds of opportunities we should look for. If Washington isn't interested, then we move on to another club...
Look at Markov. Folks on here talk like he's the second coming but if you suggest that we trade him those same people will turn around and say we couldn't get a ham sandwich for him in a trade... Same thing happened back when we had Souray, didn't deal him missed the playoffs anyway and then lost him for nothing.
I'm not suggesting that we would lose Markov for nothing (we just signed him) but he HAS value and if he gets off to a good start, I would shop him around for something that can help us down the road. He could help put a cup contender over the hump and we could get a younger player to build around. It's win-win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz
I'm not missing the point and you said so yourself: "Rebuilding doesn't guarantee success. But cup winning teams have been mostly rebuilds". You're summarizing my point with that phrase and that's all I'm trying to say here.
Not all Stanley cup winning teams went through a painful and frustrating rebuild period and not all teams that have had a number of top picks have been successful. In fact, using only Stanley cup winners as a sample doesn't show the reality, since not only cup winners are contenders and every year, a number of good teams that didn't go through a total rebuild have a chance at winning the cup.
Here's another angle to look at things: are the teams that went through a rebuild dominating year-in, year-out in this salary-cap era?
The salary cap era is brand new. And the top teams in the East in recent years on a consistent basis have been Washington and Pittsburgh, Philly may also qualify as well. One of those teams already has a cup and two are rebuilds.
In the West there's been Vancouver (2 top picks Burke traded for at least one) Detroit and SJ as the consistent teams.
Again, I'm all for trading for Danny Heatley and Joe Thornton in ripoff trades. I'm all for getting Pronger, Niedermayer and Selanne in ripoff trades too... We could try to draft one of the best defensemen of all time in the 5th round too. I just don't think it's likely to happen.
Even way back in the 80s there were periods where non-rebuilds won over rebuilds... it's going to happen for sure. '86 Habs, '89 Flames and the '90 Oilers (who had lost all the top picks by then) would qualify. So in the period of five years three clubs that didn't rebuild won. Two of them won back to back... but over the long haul it went the other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2
Agreed mathman, obviously contending teams don't have a top pick, but a trade like rivet for Gorges late first (patches) is something this team hasn't done enough of. Letting players walk for nothing is something that should be avoided as much as possible. Obviously it would be harder to do when a team is competing for a playoff berth, but imo if the goal is to eventually win a cup, making a rivet for gorges patches type deal is gonna move you closer to that goal than getting 8th place in the conference, especially since the number of teams who won a cup as an 8th seed are zero. Obviously you need support of ownership to make a bold move like that.
I was going to bring this up. That' an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Even if it's not a top five, it doesn't matter. You can get younger players and prospects to build with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Exactly...the days of a GM fleecing a top 5 pick out of another GM for an older player/vet just don't happen anymore...Pollock was a genius before his time, but 45 years later the rest of the GM's have caught on....only Burkie has fallen for this in the last few years, and at least he got a Kessell, not a older vet, and even still Burkie got burned big time....
If you have a player of value and can help win the cup, sure they will. But you have to be willing to pay the price. Burke has done it at the draft with the Canucks. And other clubs have traded for picks from clubs that they think will tank (Leafs are one example and the Avs may be another this year.) The Caps consciously traded away Jagr and a playoff team because they didn't believe they could win a cup. Clubs can and have done this. Even if they hadn't though, it still makes sense to do it.
And it doesn't have to be picks, it can be prospects that you believe in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E
I agree with moving soon to be UFAs that you don't really intend on re-signing, but there hasn't been a whole lot of those. Ryder and Koivu come to mind, but others like Kovalev, Souray, Komi, Hammer, were offered deals.
I disagreed with some decisions. I would have moved Souray and Ryder but that's it.
That isn't what's being discussed however. I don't consider this a rebuild through top 5 picks. It is more of a rebuild on the fly, which is what we've been doing already.
And we've watched clubs like Pittsburgh and Washington leapfrog us while we've done this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E
If 40, why not 50? 60? Heck, let's look at how it all went down when there were only 6 teams.
Because the modern draft started in 1970. Before that the best players were gotten by C-Form and the draft was largely irrelevant. In '67 the draft began to have meaning but Montreal had first dibs on Quebec players. This ended in 1970 when we could've drafted Perreault under the old system but the rule was changed.
That's why we start there.
BTW, on a sidenote if anybody ever says to you the Habs only had great teams because we had first dibs on Quebec players, you can tell them to jump in the lake. Probably the only players of any relevance that came from this was Rejean Houle and Marc Tardiff both of whom eventually left for the WHA only to come back later. We never really got much out of it.
And Karma got us back when Houle became our GM...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG
For everyone trying to convince us that we need more Top 5 picks, don't you mean we need Top 5 talent? Who cares where someone was picked. Having # 4 overall Benoit Pouliot on the team didn't do much for us.
Sure. If you're going to trade for a prospect who you believe will become a star, it doesn't matter where he was drafted. If you're going to trade for picks, the higher the better...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG
Montreal already has 3 guys who in retrospect probably should have been Top 5 picks:
Carey Price - actually was picked # 5 overall
PK Subban - when all is said and done he'll probably be at worst Top 5 from the 2007 draft class
Andrei Markov - I really can't find 5 players from the 1998 draft I'd take before Markov.
Three guys with top-5 talent. Add in some more young guys (Eller, Pacioretty) and some talented vets (Gionta, Cammy, Pleks, Cole, Gorges) and we're in really good shape. Complaining that we don't dismantle our team every year to try to stockpile a few more draft picks under the misguided assumption that (1) those trades can land us top 5 picks and (2) those top 5 picks are guaranteed stars is nonsense.
Nobody has claimed this.
Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-31-2011 at 01:46 PM.
Even way back in the 80s there were periods where non-rebuilds won over rebuilds... it's going to happen for sure. '86 Habs, '89 Flames and the '90 Oilers (who had lost all the top picks by then) would qualify. So in the period of five years three clubs that didn't rebuild won. Two of them won back to back... but over the long haul it went the other way.
Habs had 8 rookies in the lineup that year if I recall correctly. But maybe I' just don't understand correctly the point your making.
Habs had 8 rookies in the lineup that year if I recall correctly. But maybe I' just don't understand correctly the point your making.
The point I'm making is that most clubs that have won have rebuilt with top picks leading the way or have traded for a prospect who's led the way for them. I'm saying that superstars are a key ingredient to most (if not all) cup winning teams and drafting high or trading for prospects is a good way to land those better players. It is a repeatable strategy that isn't offered by drafting mid round picks or waiting on ripoff trades that aren't likely to happen.
Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 08-31-2011 at 01:21 PM.
The point I'm making is that most clubs that have won have rebuilt with top picks leading the way or have traded for a prospect who's led the way for them. I'm saying that superstars are a key ingredient to most (if not all) cup winning teams and drafting high or trading for prospects is a good way to land those better players. It is a repeatable strategy that isn't offered by drafting mid round picks or waiting on ripoff trades that aren't likely to happen.
I get that. But maybe it's because I'm not good enough in english, but still, I'm nut sure to see where 86' Habs fit into your argument. They are an example of what, exaclty?
I get that. But maybe it's because I'm not good enough in english, but still, I'm nut sure to see where 86' Habs fit into your argument. They are an example of what, exaclty?
They are an example of a club that did not have a top pick leading the way for them.
Petr Svoboda was a top five but he wasn't the dominant reason why they won. Robinson was traded for as a prospect and Gainey was a top ten but both were past their prime and many feel that Roy was the main (some say the only) reason that club won the cup so I've not included them.
The club drafted players in the later rounds... Roy, Richer, Lemieux that went on to great careers.
Like, who? Everyone kept pointing to the San Jose Sharks, but they didn't need the PP boost and ended up trading for Rivet instead.
Keep in mind, he may have been the bomb on the PP (literally!), but Souray's 5-on-5 play was, ahem, very suspect. And Souray's shot did not come in a nicely-packaged kit with Andrei Markov, also making the PP boost questionable.
There is no way you can convince me there wasn't at least a team or two interested in Souray, no way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI
Yes, and one of those teams was the Habs, battling for a playoff spot
Right and battling for 8th spot and perpetually spinning your tires isn't the approach I agree with, but like I said in the previous post, it would take an ownership group who is committed to winning long term, ignoring short term gains.
Long term sustainable success will never be achieved through core building during the UFA period, nor will it be by trying to stay afloat to make the 8th seed in the playoffs. That's the model the Leafs have followed. A 8th seed has never, ever won a cup, the idea that any team who makes the playoffs has a fair chance really isn't the case at all. A 8th seed has about as much chance as someone who misses the playoffs altogether, none.
What works for one team isn't always going to work for another. Fighting or not fighting has nothing to do with a Stanley Cup.
I mean, c'mon. The Bruins vs habs series could have gone either way. Easily. And the out come wasn't because of who crushed anothers players harder or who scored more goals, it was a combination of a lot of things.
For every time you guys say "We need some one more tough" the Bruins fans are going to be saying "We need a goal scorer" It is not one thing above the other, its a combination of those things.
I personally would give up a fighter to have a guarunteed goal scorer. In case you haven't notcied, no one is willing to trade Sidney Crosby for Shawn Thornton. At the end of the day, speed and production is worth more than fighting and penalties.
Fighting and penalties often gets team amped up, but I solid captain or a few goals in a few minutes are also things that get the ball rolling.
I mean you can say we need toughness just like the Canucks and the Red Wings, and the Sharks and any other team that has goal scorers but arent exactly goons, but hey, look how far they made it.
On the other hand, Philly seems to goon it up quite often and look what happened to them. They fell apart.
You are obviously doing something right if you have beaten Boston as many times as you have with out the fighting, hard hits and goonery. You still win those games. Youve still taken a majority of the contests, without trying to play the kind of game that isn't yours. Your team is quick, and scores goals and has a great goaltender. Boston is slower, hits hard, and occasionally gets the puck across the crease but thats what makes it so entertaining. The two teams couldn't be any more different.
Either way, there is no norm for hockey. You would think the team with the perfect power play would go far in their runs, but the Bruins were 0-30 before they hit one PP goal and they still won the cup.
The Canuck's goaltender started getting shaky and it was still pushed to seven games.
Not to mention, there is barely ever a good fight in the play offs. The occassional one or two, but its not a high priority. Fighting only means you lose a few players for 5 minutes and are forced to play your better ones for time the should be preparing for their next shift. It makes your star players eat minutes they shouldnt have to. So if fighting isn't important in playoffs, why make it a priority in the regular season?
There is no right or wrong in hockey. Its not about dwelling on what you dont have, but utilizing what you do.
There is no way you can convince me there wasn't at least a team or two interested in Souray, no way.
Interested enough for a first and a prospect? Can you identify a team that would've been?
Everybody kept pointing to San Jose who had the second-best PP in the league and traded for Rivet instead. I don't see that anyone else had the need. I wasn't sure the market existed then and I'm still not seeing now.
They are an example of a club that did not have a top pick leading the way for them.
Petr Svoboda was a top five but he wasn't the dominant reason why they won. Robinson was traded for as a prospect and Gainey was a top ten but both were past their prime and many feel that Roy was the main (some say the only) reason that club won the cup so I've not included them.
The club drafted players in the later rounds... Roy, Richer, Lemieux that went on to great careers.
Interested enough for a first and a prospect? Can you identify a team that would've been?
Everybody kept pointing to San Jose who had the second-best PP in the league and traded for Rivet instead. I don't see that anyone else had the need. I wasn't sure the market existed then and I'm still not seeing now.
No, I'm not on any of the teams staffs, but I am guessing more than a few teams would of been interested, I'm speculating only here, but judging by how silly gms are every single deadline, I find it ridiculous to assume otherwise.
Some of the players you mentioned weren't offered contracts, there was just talking back and forth. We don't do a good job of managing UFAs because every year we're on the bubble and we keep them. We trade draft picks for Moore/Wiz and then don't resign them. This team is destined to be a middle of the pack team for a while unless some strategies change.
We finished top in the East, and you want to trade Streit? That was not a mistake.
Could he have been re-signed earlier? Sure, at least that's what people read in the media. I know the girl Streit used to date in Mtl, she told me otherwise, but hey, it's not like people/media lash out at Mtl's management regularly, so I think I should believe them instead of my friend..
As for Wiz, I'm glad we didn't re-sign him and I understand why we got him. What was Gauthier supposed to do? Get him for a couple months and then ship him off at deadline? Didn't Gauthier trade away his rights just a few hours before open market?? Didn't he get compensation?? So what now, the compensation wasn't enough??
Moore was very key for us, he was well worth a 2nd. Nothing wrong with that. We didn't re-sign him because he wanted 2years. We weren't ready to offer him this, and I agree with that.
I don't care if it's just talking back and forth, it's the same thing. What's the point of coming with a formal offer when one side say they want 5.5M/3y while the other says not a dime over 4M/1-2y??
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
Don't forget, you also can't assume a market exists. You may want to trade a guy, but contenders only have so many first-round picks.
I very much agree, which is why I won't ever blame management for not making moves like trading Souray.
I can speculate, I can question, I can doubt, but I won't judge/blame them for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2
No, I'm not on any of the teams staffs, but I am guessing more than a few teams would of been interested, I'm speculating only here, but judging by how silly gms are every single deadline, I find it ridiculous to assume otherwise.
There isn't a whole lot of teams that moved their 1st round pick for a Dman. There's actually just one other team that made a similar transaction to ours. By that I mean trading a 1st round pick + prospect for an active Dman + pick.
That was Anaheim trading Shane O'Brien + 3round pick (luca cunti) to TB for their 1st round pick + Gerald Coleman.
TB was in a PO race versus NYI, Toronto, Florida, Carolina, NYR and the Habs. So, I don't think Gainey would have wanted to trade away his sniper to a rival.
You're right, there's a lot of BS trades, but there isn't a whole lot of them that's comparable to the Rivet one, and there's no way Souray should have attracted any less than that.
You might be absolutely convinced of something with plenty of reasons to be, like you seem to be now, but that doesn't mean you're right. So before passing any type of judgment on whether or not something could have been done, maybe take a step back and realize, we really, truly, just don't know.
I find it kind of humourous that Washington is being used as a "superior" example when we have done more or less the same as them in the playoffs the last four years, if not better.
You still talk for everyone? Who cares what you say too? Get a hold of yourself.
Quote:
You make it sound like we've dominated the league.
well sure, you cutted the whole part of my post where it says "we've been over-average in many respects". so you can try and make it look like something it isn't.
For the bazillionth time, you,re tried to misrepresent what I say, and this time, cutting out a part of my post that actually proved the opposite of what you said.
My post was related to a word you used, and how that word is misleading. You haven't disproven this while I proved that they were "over-average in many respects".
I find it kind of humourous that Washington is being used as a "superior" example when we have done more or less the same as them in the playoffs the last four years, if not better.
bon point Jacques, so true. TBH, I still think with the Habs in the last few years, a couple of injuries have hampered our chances at a legitimate cup run. People can say that small players get injured more easily, but Pronger was out when they played Boston and probably a big factor in that series.
It really is (as Cole said in a recent interview) about the bounces, calls and injuries. Playoffs are so so close. I think we all know that on this board. I can see us winning the Cup this year, without it being homerism and it not being a miracle. Just some bounces going our way and our players not having their necks broken. Price is good enough to win the Cup based on goaltending. 10 OT wins do help though. I wish we had like 1 of 3 last year!
I find it kind of humourous that Washington is being used as a "superior" example when we have done more or less the same as them in the playoffs the last four years, if not better.
I find it kind of humourous that people used to say this kind of stuff about Chicago and the Pens...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias
You still talk for everyone? Who cares what you say too? Get a hold of yourself.
Take your own advice. Seriously man, chill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias
well sure, you cutted the whole part of my post where it says "we've been over-average in many respects". so you can try and make it look like something it isn't.
For the bazillionth time, you,re tried to misrepresent what I say, and this time, cutting out a part of my post that actually proved the opposite of what you said.
My post was related to a word you used, and how that word is misleading. You haven't disproven this while I proved that they were "over-average in many respects".
Dude, your Charlie Sheen type meltdowns are funny to read but you've got to get a grip. If all you are saying is that we've been barely above average, congratulations! Yes we have. But that's nothing to be excited about.
The Habs have been a bubble team forever. Yet, you keep coming here talking about how we've made the playoffs in 6 of the last 7 years or something and how we're one of the few clubs who've managed to do this... That would be great except, we're averaging 92 points and are barely squeaking in on the last day of the season much of the time. So it doesn't really mean a whole lot.
But hey, we're slightly better than average so... Yeehaw! Break out the champagne.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habtastic
bon point Jacques, so true. TBH, I still think with the Habs in the last few years, a couple of injuries have hampered our chances at a legitimate cup run. People can say that small players get injured more easily, but Pronger was out when they played Boston and probably a big factor in that series.
It really is (as Cole said in a recent interview) about the bounces, calls and injuries. Playoffs are so so close. I think we all know that on this board. I can see us winning the Cup this year, without it being homerism and it not being a miracle. Just some bounces going our way and our players not having their necks broken. Price is good enough to win the Cup based on goaltending. 10 OT wins do help though. I wish we had like 1 of 3 last year!
Luck will always factor into things... Calls and bounces will definitely help some clubs and hurt others. But 8th place clubs haven't won cups. You've got to be good to be lucky.
