RobRock Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 (edited) People are mad because...WE COULD HAVE PICKED UP AN EXPERIENCED, CHEAP, BETTER GOALIE....for almost nothing. Can anyone tell me please, why this wouldnt have made sense, since we clearly are going for the playoffs (ie. didnt deal Souray) What goalie did you have in mind? Biron? Buffalo wasn't going to deal him to Montreal, especially if the Habs plan was going to be to use him as the starter until Huet was healthy again. Belfour? Joseph? They weren't dealt at all, so it's not like anybody outbid Gainey. Maybe they should have have taken Boucher off waivers. Maybe they claimed him but another team got him. Maybe Gainey put in a claim on every goalie who was waived on Sunday and Monday, and Leighton was the one he got. Or maybe he should have dealt Murray, Downey and Niinimaa for Luongo. I don't think it is absurd to have a fan base to take out their disappointment on a goalie who has passed through 5 organizations in his young career, when he happened to be the only move their GM made and every team around you acquired an asset to help with the stretch run. Gainey did nothing to make the Habs better for the next 20 games. Rivet for Gorges is a lateral move and adding a young goalie when you have a ton of depth at his position is essentially doing nothing. When people are upset they need somebody to point their frustrations at. Add to the fact you have people posting that this kid is a great move just fans the flames. I have seen him play on more than one occasion and he has been less than impressive, does that mean he has no future? No. But it is an underwhelming move in a time with overwhelming expectations. What deal was to be made that would have improved the team over the next 20 games? What realistic, can't refuse offer was on the table that Gainey turned down? What blue chip prospects did he offer that some schmuck on the other end of the phone had the unmitigated gall to walk away from? Edited March 2, 2007 by RobRock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullsmith Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Future, Schmuture... Our future is now...If we are not a contender now, we wont be in 3-5 years....Koivu, Kovy, Souray, Markov, etc. will be older. Our group of young guys will be a better core? Do we know this?? Gotta go for it sometimes Myself, I believe the exact opposite of this. Koivu I grant would be best served by going for it now, but the rest not by a longshot. Markov's best years are ahed of him. Souray has only arrived as a PP monster over the last two seasons. Yes, this could be his best year or, like Al MaCinnis (sorry for misspelling his name, I just can't get it right at this moment) he could stay dangerous for years. Kovalev's best years were behind him before he ever wore the CH. The simple fact is WE'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH RIGHT NOW. If we trade the future for the present, we're a bunch of short sighted idiots. Sorry, but the guys we have coming up now, from Higgins and Komisarek to the Kostys and Price are miles better than the guys we had six years ago. So logic says we're getting better. I have nothing against going for it. Bob traded Iginla for Niewendyk. He went to two finals and won a cup. That's going for it, and I applaud him both for the success and the balls. But this is not our year and no trade deadline deals, not Forsberg and Smyth and Belfour combined, were going to change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBHabs_fan Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 What goalie did you have in mind? Biron? Buffalo wasn't going to deal him to Montreal, especially if the Habs plan was going to be to use him as the starter until Huet was healthy again. Belfour? Joseph? They weren't dealt at all, so it's not like anybody outbid Gainey. Maybe they should have have taken Boucher off waivers. Maybe they claimed him but another team got him. Maybe Gainey put in a claim on every goalie who was waived on Sunday and Monday, and Leighton was the one he got. Or maybe he should have dealt Murray, Downey and Niinimaa for Luongo. What deal was to be made that would have improved the team over the next 20 games? What realistic, can't refuse offer was on the table that Gainey turned down? What blue chip prospects did he offer that some schmuck on the other end of the phone had the unmitigated gall to walk away from? RobRock, I'll break it down for you, like I have many time. If you keep Souray, you're saying we are at least making a playoff push. If we are making a playoff push, we need some security at goaltending. If we needed security at goaltending, we could have got it. Don't tell me we couldnt have gotten Belfour, Joseph or someone else better than MICHAEL LEIGHTON, as insurance. Many ex-GM's and hockey analysts who are smarter than you, or anyone on this board, have concurred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 RobRock, I'll break it down for you, like I have many time. If you keep Souray, you're saying we are at least making a playoff push. If we are making a playoff push, we need some security at goaltending. If we needed security at goaltending, we could have got it. Don't tell me we couldnt have gotten Belfour, Joseph or someone else better than MICHAEL LEIGHTON, as insurance. Many ex-GM's and hockey analysts who are smarter than you, or anyone on this board, have concurred To start, I never disagreed with you about the goaltending situation. I never for a moment thought that Michael Leighton was anything more than a farm team addition, especially with Danis injured. Belfour and Joseph weren't dealt, so there's no way of knowing for certain if they were even available. If two guys want to make a deal, they'll make it. Hell, there were players dealt yesterday who were never even mentioned in rumours. The only goalies traded were back-ups and minor leaguers. Biron was the only name goalie dealt, and he wasn't coming to Montreal from Buffalo. None of those guys are any more the answer to the problems than Leighton is. I just want to know what trade you see that Gainey could have made that would have gotten Belfour, Joseph, or any other quality goalie to Montreal. The fact that you choose not to answer it directly speaks volumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 [quote name='RobRock' date='Mar 1 2007, 07:20 PM' post='192302 Or maybe he should have dealt Murray, Downey and Niinimaa for Luongo. What deal was to be made that would have improved the team over the next 20 games? What realistic, can't refuse offer was on the table that Gainey turned down? What blue chip prospects did he offer that some schmuck on the other end of the phone had the unmitigated gall to walk away from? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBHabs_fan Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 To start, I never disagreed with you about the goaltending situation. I never for a moment thought that Michael Leighton was anything more than a farm team addition, especially with Danis injured. Belfour and Joseph weren't dealt, so there's no way of knowing for certain if they were even available. If two guys want to make a deal, they'll make it. Hell, there were players dealt yesterday who were never even mentioned in rumours. The only goalies traded were back-ups and minor leaguers. Biron was the only name goalie dealt, and he wasn't coming to Montreal from Buffalo. None of those guys are any more the answer to the problems than Leighton is. I just want to know what trade you see that Gainey could have made that would have gotten Belfour, Joseph, or any other quality goalie to Montreal. The fact that you choose not to answer it directly speaks volumes. Volumes? About what... I dont need to answer that question directly, cuz the answer is so blatantly obvious. It goes like this To MTL: Belfour or Joseph To FLA or PHX: a mid-level draft pick +/- a lower draft pick I refuse to believe it wasnt there. But like you said, if TWO guys wanna make a deal they will. Bob obviously didnt want to make it for some reason. There is no reason the other teams were particularly attached to those goalies when they could have got a draft pick for the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Volumes? About what... I dont need to answer that question directly, cuz the answer is so blatantly obvious. It goes like this To MTL: Belfour or Joseph To FLA or PHX: a mid-level draft pick +/- a lower draft pick I refuse to believe it wasnt there. But like you said, if TWO guys wanna make a deal they will. Bob obviously didnt want to make it for some reason. There is no reason the other teams were particularly attached to those goalies when they could have got a draft pick for the future A lot of times with vetarans like Belfour and Joseph, teams have plans for them beyond their playing days and want to have the guy retire as a member of their team. Belfour and Joseph are both collegiate products who could move quite easily into management positions. If all the team can get for them is a mid round pick, it may not seem worth the bother and inconvenience to the player in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 RobRock, I'll break it down for you, like I have many time. If you keep Souray, you're saying we are at least making a playoff push. If we are making a playoff push, we need some security at goaltending. If we needed security at goaltending, we could have got it. Don't tell me we couldnt have gotten Belfour, Joseph or someone else better than MICHAEL LEIGHTON, as insurance. Many ex-GM's and hockey analysts who are smarter than you, or anyone on this board, have concurred Red: Maybe Gainey is keeping Souray because he believes he can re-sign him. If you trade a player they're much less likely to come back to you. Green: If by playoff push you mean making the playoffs, I think we have a legit shot with the guys who we've got. It's our spot to lose. If by playoff push you mean advancing into atleast the 2nd round well Huet will be back by the playoffs so our goaltending should not be a major concern. Blue: I'm sure we could have gotten a better goalie than Leighton. I'm sure we could have gotten Brodeur, Luongo or Kiprussoff. The question is whether there were any he could get at the right price. How do we know Florida didn't want a 1st rounder for Belfour. I mean, if we got a 1st+ for Rivet... I'd rather have Leighton for free than Belfour for a 1st. Purple: Just because someone's an ex-GM or especially a hockey analyst doesn't make them smarter than everyone who isn't a hockey analyst. It doesn't even mean they know more about hockey (By the way, intelligence and knowledge [of hockey] are basically opposites.) Hockey analysts in particular though are no more than the hockey fans who post on these boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSharpMarble Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Red: Maybe Gainey is keeping Souray because he believes he can re-sign him. If you trade a player they're much less likely to come back to you. Green: If by playoff push you mean making the playoffs, I think we have a legit shot with the guys who we've got. It's our spot to lose. If by playoff push you mean advancing into atleast the 2nd round well Huet will be back by the playoffs so our goaltending should not be a major concern. Blue: I'm sure we could have gotten a better goalie than Leighton. I'm sure we could have gotten Brodeur, Luongo or Kiprussoff. The question is whether there were any he could get at the right price. How do we know Florida didn't want a 1st rounder for Belfour. I mean, if we got a 1st+ for Rivet... I'd rather have Leighton for free than Belfour for a 1st. Purple: Just because someone's an ex-GM or especially a hockey analyst doesn't make them smarter than everyone who isn't a hockey analyst. It doesn't even mean they know more about hockey (By the way, intelligence and knowledge [of hockey] are basically opposites.) Hockey analysts in particular though are no more than the hockey fans who post on these boards. Red: Yes this team with terrible offense needs an over paid terrible defender. We all know this team is done this season, Huet was our meal ticket. Should have given Souray a cup shot and if he wanted back resign him next season, but even then he will be commanding alot more then he is worth. We don't need another albatross thank you. Green: You don't know if huet will be back, and with the way this team takes a week off at a time we are done before we started. This team will crumble against just about anyone in the league right now. Blue: There is a reason those 1st round picks were being tossed around like garbage, it's a weak draft. Belfour is a proven starter, leighton might be ok or he might let in 7 goals a game we tossed the dice because we are too afraid to pay a little more? With that attitude we will never acquire anyone of worth unless we hit the lottery and get a star for nothing. Purple: Haha this is like saying just because someone is an electrician most of his life doesnt mean he is any better at it then some shmuck who watchs a couple reno shows! These people live in the hockey world, it's their business to know more than the fans. They have connections and eat sleep and breathe hockey. Sure you will get a few fans who follow things just as closly but on majority if you are that into this sport you get a job doing it. By Gainey doing nothing he didn't pick a route and thus we didn't capitalize on what we had. If we were going for it this year we needed a scoring forward and a decent goalie, if we are building for next year we needed to move souray and get a high level prospect ready to join the team next season. He didn't do either and now he looks incompetant. He will either redeem or condemn himself in the offseason now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 *sigh* by the way what I was saying in the red is that it was a choice between having Souray for a few more years (80%) and keeping him for the end of the year or Souray signing with another team in the offseason (99.99%) and having some prospects in his place. If you trade Souray he WILL not come back to you. That's basically certain. By keeping him, our chances of re-signing him are much greater. Like you said lower in your post you have to sometimes pay for the things yuo need. And Souray is a virtually irreplaceable part of our team and the boosted chances of re-signing him were deemed more valuable than whatever "garbage" picks and prospects he could have gotten. & why say that hockey analysts know way more about hockey than anyone else but then call one of the most respected GMs ever incompetant. You know who knows far more about hockey than the analysts? Gainey! Just let him do his thing because there may not be a man in the world who could do a better job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathieu30 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Well said BTH. I like that first post. I'm starting to understand why you were once #2 in Québec.. The force is in you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 The only people who look incompetent are those who are ripping their hair out because the Habs didn't do much on trade deadline day. It's not even worth bothering to reply to those who baldly assert, with no supporting evidence, that we could have acquired a #1 goalie for a 14756th-round pick and Chris Nilan's jockstrap. The argument that we should have moved Souray for assets is entirely reasonable, but if he signs with us in the offseason then no mistake has been made. (And even if he signs elsewhere, it will at least have been a reasonable gamble, part of a plan to try to keep this valuable player). Of course you can always be bum-buddies with Pierre Macguire and assert that Souray is unfit to play in your beer league. Only Habs fans could have this powerhouse PP stud that 99% of teams would LOVE to have and crap in his face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSharpMarble Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 *sigh* by the way what I was saying in the red is that it was a choice between having Souray for a few more years and keeping him for the end of the year or Souray signing with another team in the offseason and having some prospects in his place. If you trade Souray he WILL not come back to you. That's basically certain. By keeping him, our chances of re-signing him are much greater. Like you said lower in your post you have to sometimes pay for the things yuo need. And Souray is a virtually irreplaceable part of our team and the boosted chances of re-signing him were deemed more valuable than whatever "garbage" picks and prospects he could have gotten. & why say that hockey analysts know way more about hockey than anyone else but then call one of the most respected GMs ever incompetant. You know who knows far more about hockey than the analysts? Gainey! Just let him do his thing because there may not be a man in the world who could do a better job. Those are some lovely percentages you just plucked from thin air, I was sure to delete them. If Souray wants to leave he will be gone, trade or not. I like how your thinking goes right out the window when we look at forsburg and how he will most definitly return to the flyers next season. Our chances of signing him have not improved one bit, it is still highest bid wins, the only thing that is certain is we have no prospects to show for it. Had we moved him and got something we could have removed the lose/lose situation, now we definitly arent getting anything for him. When Coburn is a 1st pairing defensman in philly I wonder will you still consider him "garbage"? By saying "there may not be a man in the world who could do a better job" it obvious you have been drinking the kool aid, everyway you look at this situation it could have been done better and I didn't say he "IS" incompetant I said he "LOOKS" it, whether or not he is will be settled in time. PS. don't sigh you love this shyt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nojo Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I would have to guess that if Gainey had moved Souray it would be have been recognition that the Habs season is over. We have seen the fragility of this team since December and I believe that losing Souray would have put the nail in the coffin. In spite of Souray's mediocrity in his defensive zone at times he has been a glue for this team most of the year. The Habs organization probably could not and would not accept that the season is over. Edmonton's run last year may have made dreamers out of many a GM. As far as the goaltender situation is concerned Gainey has said that Leighton is an insurance policy only. In spite of Aebischer's weaknesses lately he did play reasonably well most of the season and Montreal is a patient organization if nothing else. So they haven't completely given up on the Swiss goalie and seemed to be encouraged by what they see in Halak. Maybe the organization is dreaming again but you might have trouble finding fault in that because of the history they have of pulling miracles out of a hat when it comes to goaltenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Those are some lovely percentages you just plucked from thin air, I was sure to delete them. If Souray wants to leave he will be gone, trade or not. I like how your thinking goes right out the window when we look at forsburg and how he will most definitly return to the flyers next season. Our chances of signing him have not improved one bit, it is still highest bid wins, the only thing that is certain is we have no prospects to show for it. Had we moved him and got something we could have removed the lose/lose situation, now we definitly arent getting anything for him. The way I see it, there are only 2 ways of looking at it - either Gainey is confident that he can re-sign Souray in the offseason or Gainey is incompetent. I prefer to choose the first one because Gainey has been a well-respected and great GM his entire career. When Coburn is a 1st pairing defensman in philly I wonder will you still consider him "garbage"? By saying "there may not be a man in the world who could do a better job" it obvious you have been drinking the kool aid, everyway you look at this situation it could have been done better and I didn't say he "IS" incompetant I said he "LOOKS" it, whether or not he is will be settled in time. PS. don't sigh you love this shyt. "Garbage" was your word. That's why I put it in quotations before. You said GMs were throwing around picks like garbage. So I was pointing out that it's kind of illogical to say that guys are throwing out picks like garbage because it's a weak draft and then say we should trade Souray to get some picks for this draft and then a prospect or 2. PS. I do, actually! @mathieu30: I didn't know you'd read that #2 post since you didn't reply to it. I actually would have been 1st had a Chinese kid jumped onto the scene (maybe he'd just moved here) very soon before I passed the former 1st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSharpMarble Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 The way I see it, there are only 2 ways of looking at it - either Gainey is confident that he can re-sign Souray in the offseason or Gainey is incompetent. I prefer to choose the first one because Gainey has been a well-respected and great GM his entire career. "Garbage" was your word. That's why I put it in quotations before. You said GMs were throwing around picks like garbage. So I was pointing out that it's kind of illogical to say that guys are throwing out picks like garbage because it's a weak draft and then say we should trade Souray to get some picks for this draft and then a prospect or 2. PS. I do, actually! Well we will see, come next season. I was saying the picks were garbage and for some bizarre reason we acquired 2. You seem so against letting go of these picks for a good player who could both help the team now and possibly sign with us later. I didn't want Souray traded for picks because I believe within the next two season is our window and picks wont help us for four years. Prospects are what we could have gotten but we didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Which guy rumoured to be on the block could have helped us more than Souray can? I don't think anyone can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSharpMarble Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Which guy rumoured to be on the block could have helped us more than Souray can? I don't think anyone can. How about a defenseman that can defend? Our champ was a -3 tonight, he is a disaster. Heres a crazy idea, instead of relying on defenseman to score and talented offensman to check how about we let our forwards do their job and get defenders who know how to do theirs? I think anyone could help more and maybe simply moving him would shake the team up a bit. We NEED to make one big move, and that is dumping Kovalev, he is the core of the problem on this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 How about a defenseman that can defend? Our champ was a -3 tonight, he is a disaster. Rivet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSharpMarble Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 B)--> QUOTE(David B @ Mar 3 2007, 12:23 AM) 192962[/snapback] Rivet? Rivet couldn't defend a glove from an armless man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBHabs_fan Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I dont expect to see too much more argument with the fact the Bob either should have dumped Souray for assets, or solidified our goaltending for a run....seeing how things went tonight. YOu guys argue tooth and nail about how smart Bob is.....but i bet he wishes we had an experienced, capable goalie right now. We just might make the playoffs if we did.....too bad...didnt see the game, but scoring 5 on miller aint bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Rivet couldn't defend a glove from an armless man. I take it then you aren't watching the Sharks game tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSharpMarble Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I dont expect to see too much more argument with the fact the Bob either should have dumped Souray for assets, or solidified our goaltending for a run....seeing how things went tonight. YOu guys argue tooth and nail about how smart Bob is.....but i bet he wishes we had an experienced, capable goalie right now. We just might make the playoffs if we did.....too bad...didnt see the game, but scoring 5 on miller aint bad Yes we are sure enjoying the bounty of his wonderful decision to do nothing! B)--> QUOTE(David B @ Mar 3 2007, 12:28 AM) 192971[/snapback] I take it then you aren't watching the Sharks game tonight. He is playing better on a team stacked with defensive talent!?!?!?! It's like a miracle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 (edited) How about a defenseman that can defend? Our champ was a -3 tonight, he is a disaster. Heres a crazy idea, instead of relying on defenseman to score and talented offensman to check how about we let our forwards do their job and get defenders who know how to do theirs? I think anyone could help more and maybe simply moving him would shake the team up a bit. We NEED to make one big move, and that is dumping Kovalev, he is the core of the problem on this team. Right, if Souray isn't 100% complete, then he must be a total piece of garbage. The same sort of thinking would have run Larry Robinson - who was prone to high-risk plays - out of town on a rail. Luckily, fans were smarter back then, or at least the organization was. Changes to this team will occur in the off-season. I expect the team to try hard to re-sign Souray, since they didn't move him, but there will be trades, unsigned UFAs, and general movement. No WAY is Gainey likely to go into 2007-08 without some significant adjustment to the core that cost him the playoffs this season - most likely in the form of a UFA centreman if he can (Brière being the obvious candidate). Just because he didn't move Souray doesn't mean he thinks he's sitting on the 1985 Edmonton Oilers. And any other deal would have involved sacrificing picks and young talent, which would be just plain stupid. You see the Sabres? 17 of their players came from WITHIN THE SYSTEM. If they'd binged and purged every trade deadline day, they'd be where the Leafs are right now. If I read much more of this hysteria over the *unimaginably stupid mistake of not being more active on deadline day* I think I'm gonna puke. 'He should have traded a 12th-round pick for Martin Broduer...a 20-goal, 50-point all star defenceman and PP stud with the hardest shot in hockey is OBVIOUSLY not worth trying to keep...he should have flushed our future down the crapper to help this obviously condending team load up for the Cup drive...' Blah, blah, blah, it's like listening to honking geese, and about as sensible. Edited March 3, 2007 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.