Habs UFA and RFA Signings

[JoeLassister]

Tanguay is an impact player but doesn't replace Ryder's scoring touch. If Tanguay plays with Koivu, we better have a real established sniper on that line. If not, the Tanguay move is a waste.

Tanguay Koivu Hossa/Jagr/Demitra

A. Kost Plekanec Kovalev

S. Kost Higgins Latendresse

Bégin Lapierre Kosto

Chipchura

Well, Ryder and his scoring touch were in the stands lats playoffs...

[Wamsley01]

It helped get them within two wins of the Stanley Cup. The two players they gave up are average at best. Esposito slipped in the draft quite a bit, so he's a wild card and potential bust candidate. And given how young the team is already, they can live without a pick.

Who cares if they almost won the Cup. They didn't and accomplished little more than Montreal did and Montreal

traded nobody.

Armstrong and Christensen are both under 26 and make less than 2M combined and are valuable commodities at that price.

Higgins is a year younger than Armstrong, scored 52 points in 82 games on the top 2 lines with 200+ more minutes of PP time.

Armstrong scored 35 points in 72 games on the 3rd and 4th line with almost zero PP time. He put up 40 points in 47 games when

he did receive top PP minutes in 2005-06

Lapierre scored 18 points in 53 games, Christensen had 24 in 59 games.

So if the Habs dealt Higgins, Lapierre, David Fischer and their first rounder (which the Habs used to turn into Alex Tanguay)

for Hossa and a Stanley Cup Finals loss you would not view this as a poor deal?

You are underestimating another teams assets just like somebody from Pittsburgh would view Higgins and Lapierre as bit parts

and not top level talent.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Wamsley01

[Ecurb]

I'm for waiting out Sundins decision, its simply the

best move we could make.

I also want to see us sign Laraque, if only to protect

our yutes.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I think that, if the young guns continue to improve, the plan is to let Kovalev go (and hopefully give Saks a pay cut). That should resolve any lingering worries about cap space for the longer term.

One of the things Gainey seems to have intentionally done, incidentally, is bring up a crop of players who are emotionally invested in the organization and in each other. Higgins is a dyed-in-the-wool Habs' fan; Komisarek is his best pal; the two have a mutual interest in sticking it out with us for the long haul. The Kostytins are brothers who want to play together. Plekanec is totally a product of the the Habs' developmental approach. Price has been Gainey's baby from start to finish. If they continue to improve and enjoy success together, there is no reason why any of our major pieces will want to sign anywhere else. Now that's no guarantee against being outbid or poached, but it helps. And that's something none of these mercenary made-to-order UFA teams can match.

Edited July 2, 2008 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Wamsley01]

I think that, if the young guns continue to improve, the plan is to let Kovalev go. That should resolve any lingering worries about cap space.

One of the things Gainey seems to have intentionally done, incidentally, is bring up a crop of players who are emotionally invested in the organization and in each other. Higgins is a dyed-in-the-wool Habs' fan; Komisarek is his best pal; the two have a mutual interest in sticking it out with us for the long haul. The Kostytins are brothers who want to play together. Plekanec is totally a product of the the Habs' developmental approach. Price has been Gainey's baby from start to finish. If they continue to improve and enjoy success together, there is no reason why any of our major pieces will want to sign anywhere else. Now that's no guarantee against being outbid or poached, but it helps. And that's something none of these mercenary made-to-order UFA teams can match.

Bang on. They will be used to the tax hit, they will understand and appreciate the atmosphere and they will

have grown attached to the city of Montreal.

[sakiqc]

Who cares if they almost won the Cup. They didn't and accomplished little more than Montreal did and Montreal

traded nobody.

But you gotta try at some point. Hossa was HUGE for the Pens in the playoffs, even to the last play of the Finals, Hossa was right there to tie the game at the last second. I'm all for risking at the right time, to get the team to a higher level. The time seems right. Opportunity like this year might not come back before long.

[Wamsley01]

But you gotta try at some point. Hossa was HUGE for the Pens in the playoffs, even to the last play of the Finals, Hossa was right there to tie the game at the last second. I'm all for risking at the right time, to get the team to a higher level. The time seems right. Opportunity like this year might not come back before long.

But their window has just opened (they were brutal just 2 years ago). They did not need to make that move.

They tried, it was aggressive, it did not work and it cost them.

Montreal could have been that aggressive last season, and I am glad that they did not piss away 4 players

for an unrealistic shot at the Cup.

The Pens were there, but they were lucky to win 2 games in that series and were not in Detroit's class.

[Fanpuck33]

Who cares if they almost won the Cup. They didn't and accomplished little more than Montreal did and Montreal

traded nobody.

You're really comparing losing 4-1 in the 2nd round to being 2 wins from the Cup? They got Hossa to make a run at the Cup and they did just that. Hossa was arguably their best skater in the playoffs and was a HUGE reason they got as close to the Cup as they did. Unless you're Detroit, you only get so many chances at the Cup. I mean, if Malkin hadn't been drained in the finals, they could very well have hoisted the Cup.

Also, don't forget Dupuis, who had good chemistry with Crosby. He accounts for the loss of either Christensen or Armstrong. Plus, they tried to sign Hossa and keep him in town. It's not like he was a pure rental player, it just ended up that way. Heck, until he signs elsewhere, he could still come back to Pittsburgh.

[Habsfan84]

The Habs really dont need anyone that bad but it would be nice t get a Hossa but you also dont want to give him too much.

I was disapointed about Rolston since i would rather have him them all these other guys because hes the cheaper option.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Habsfan84

[Habsfan]

Higgins is a dyed-in-the-wool Habs' fan; Komisarek is his best pal; the two have a mutual interest in sticking it out with us for the long haul.

Which is one of the main reasons why i was saying that I didn't want to see Higgins get traded. If you trade higgins, you might lose Komisarek, and losing either one of these good young players would be horrible!

[Wamsley01]

You're really comparing losing 4-1 in the 2nd round to being 2 wins from the Cup? They got Hossa to make a run at the Cup and they did just that. Hossa was arguably their best skater in the playoffs and was a HUGE reason they got as close to the Cup as they did. Unless you're Detroit, you only get so many chances at the Cup. I mean, if Malkin hadn't been drained in the finals, they could very well have hoisted the Cup.

Also, don't forget Dupuis, who had good chemistry with Crosby. He accounts for the loss of either Christensen or Armstrong. Plus, they tried to sign Hossa and keep him in town. It's not like he was a pure rental player, it just ended up that way. Heck, until he signs elsewhere, he could still come back to Pittsburgh.

Would you trade Higgins, Lapierre, Fischer and the first rounder that landed Tanguay for 2 Wins in the Cup

Finals and Dupuis?

Their is winning the Cup and their is second place. Is Pittsburgh head and shoulders above the Canadiens

going into this season? How did Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary all do the next season after taking their shot?

They depleted their team for an ill advised run at the Cup. As for Malkin being drained...come on. They were fortunate

to reach Game 6 and were outshot by 80 shots in the series. Malkin was going to change that?

They shot their load before they were ready.

[Fanpuck33]

Would you trade Higgins, Lapierre, Fischer and the first rounder that landed Tanguay for 2 Wins in the Cup

Finals and Dupuis?

I would have answered you had I felt your comparison had merit, but I think Higgins is a class above Christensen and Armstrong, Lapierre possibly around the same level. On top of that, Bob showed with Kovalev he can resign rental players, so I think we would have had a better shot at resigning Hossa. That being said, I would be willing to trade two looking-like-a-bust players, a risky prospect, and a 1st for a shot at the Cup. We can't look in hindsight and say "trade the 1st we traded for Tanguay," as we have no idea how Hossa would have changed things. If we resigned him, we probably wouldn't even have asked about Tanguay, or could have looked for another way to trade for him.

Their is winning the Cup and their is second place. Is Pittsburgh head and shoulders above the Canadiens

going into this season? How did Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary all do the next season after taking their shot?

They depleted their team for an ill advised run at the Cup. As for Malkin being drained...come on. They were fortunate

to reach Game 6 and were outshot by 80 shots in the series. Malkin was going to change that?

As for "only" getting two wins in the finals, hindsight is 20/20 my friend. A run for the Cup is only ill advised if it fails. And yes, I think Malkin had a huge impact on the series. His line's inability to get anything going meant his line was giving up more shots than it took. It also allowed Detroit to focus totally on matching up Crosby's line. Malkin was the 2nd best player in the NHL during the regular season, so his finals production obviously had a big effect on how the team fared. Anything can happen in the playoffs. Just because Detroit played a fantastic series doesn't mean them winning was a foregone conclusion. Bigger upsets have happened, and could have happened here.

[MMPL]

I also want to see us sign Laraque, if only to protect

our yutes.

All in favor of one of my favourite all time players, G. Laraque raise your right hand.

*Right hand raised*

Pull it off Bob :hlogo:

[Wamsley01]

I would have answered you had I felt your comparison had merit, but I think Higgins is a class above Christensen and Armstrong, Lapierre possibly around the same level. On top of that, Bob showed with Kovalev he can resign rental players, so I think we would have had a better shot at resigning Hossa. That being said, I would be willing to trade two looking-like-a-bust players, a risky prospect, and a 1st for a shot at the Cup. We can't look in hindsight and say "trade the 1st we traded for Tanguay," as we have no idea how Hossa would have changed things. If we resigned him, we probably wouldn't even have asked about Tanguay, or could have looked for another way to trade for him.

As for "only" getting two wins in the finals, hindsight is 20/20 my friend. A run for the Cup is only ill advised if it fails. And yes, I think Malkin had a huge impact on the series. His line's inability to get anything going meant his line was giving up more shots than it took. It also allowed Detroit to focus totally on matching up Crosby's line. Malkin was the 2nd best player in the NHL during the regular season, so his finals production obviously had a big effect on how the team fared. Anything can happen in the playoffs. Just because Detroit played a fantastic series doesn't mean them winning was a foregone conclusion. Bigger upsets have happened, and could have happened here.

Well, Habs fans tend to overrate their own so that is no surprise that Higgins is rated above Armstrong in your eyes.

The argument can be made they are equals based on past performance, if you choose to ignore that, to each his own.

It surprises me in the least coming from the guy with Higgins in his avatar.

As for Kovalev resigning with Montreal, that has absolutley nothing to do with the ability to resign Hossa.

The guy turned down 7M+ and a chance to play with Crosby to become a UFA. So what makes you think Bob

Gainey (who in 10 days could not convice Sundin of anything) would have convinced Hossa?

As for hindsight being 20/20. I would have told you the Pens were not going to win the Cup before the playoffs,

after round 1, after round 2 and after round 3. Their D was nowhere up to the level of a Stanley Cup champion

and Malkin being hurt did not change that. Fleury stood on his head and stole a game, and they won one on their own.

Woo Hoo. They took their shot, they lost. I am glad Montreal did not make the same mistake.

That is a move if Ottawa made I would have understood, Pittsburgh. Not so much.

And I would rather have Tanguay for 1 year @ 5M then Hossa for 5 years @ 8M.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Wamsley01

[Prime Minister Koivu]

I can not believe the amount of money that Huet and Streit signed for!!!!!!

Absolutely out of control.

lock out?

[Ecurb]

Well, Habs fans tend to overrate their own so that is no surprise that Higgins is rated above Armstrong in your eyes.

The argument can be made they are equals based on past performance, if you choose to ignore that, to each his own.

It surprises me in the least coming from the guy with Higgins in his avatar.

As for Kovalev resigning with Montreal, that has absolutley nothing to do with the ability to resign Hossa.

The guy turned down 7M+ and a chance to play with Crosby to become a UFA. So what makes you think Bob

Gainey (who in 10 days could not convice Sundin of anything) would have convinced Hossa?

As for hindsight being 20/20. I would have told you the Pens were not going to win the Cup before the playoffs,

after round 1, after round 2 and after round 3. Their D was nowhere up to the level of a Stanley Cup champion

and Malkin being hurt did not change that. Fleury stood on his head and stole a game, and they won one on their own.

Woo Hoo. They took their shot, they lost. I am glad Montreal did not make the same mistake.

That is a move if Ottawa made I would have understood, Pittsburgh. Not so much.

And I would rather have Tanguay for 1 year @ 5M then Hossa for 5 years @ 8M.

I can't believe your saying Higgins and Armstrong are equal. And my eyes are fine.

You just made a Houlian blunder if you think they're equal players. Both are different

types, Armstrong will be a decent 3rd line type, Higgins will be a 30/30 2nd line type.

[Wamsley01]

I can't believe your saying Higgins and Armstrong are equal. And my eyes are fine.

You just made a Houlian blunder if you think they're equal players. Both are different

types, Armstrong will be a decent 3rd line type, Higgins will be a 30/30 2nd line type.

Of course they are not equal

Armstrong has 109 pts in 199 games and Higgins has 128 pts in 225 games.

A point every 0.55 games for Armstrong as opposed to the vastly superior 0.57 of Chris Higgins.

Higgins gets ample PP time and has played with Koivu for the last 2 years. Armstrong has done

alot of his damage toiling on the 3rd and 4th line for Pittsburgh and the year he did receive a PP

chance almost averaged a point per game.

I am a big Chris Higgins fan, but you cannot tell me that they are not comparable in establishing

the compensation that Pittsburgh gave up from a Montreal perspective. They are close in age,

they have comparable production and certain individual strengths offset others.

I removed my homer goggles and I stand by the comparison

[Fanpuck33]

Well, Habs fans tend to overrate their own so that is no surprise that Higgins is rated above Armstrong in your eyes.

The argument can be made they are equals based on past performance, if you choose to ignore that, to each his own.

It surprises me in the least coming from the guy with Higgins in his avatar.

Did you ever wonder why they weren't given as much ice time and powerplay time as Higgins? Could it be that Higgins is a better player? Armstrong, for instance, played half a season on Crosby's wing and put up good numbers. He never recaptured that success. If he's so good, why hasn't he reproduced that rookie season? Higgins, on the other hand has increased his points per game in each of his three NHL seasons. It's not like he didn't earn ice time and it's not like Armstrong lost it for no reason. And then there is leadership. Higgins wore an "A" in only his 3rd NHL season, and that says a lot about a player in my opinion.

When Armstrong starts consistently outproducing Higgins, then I'll change my mind. But he has to show he's a better player before I believe it.

P.S. I think the phrase you are looking for is "It doesn't surprise me in the least..."

[Wamsley01]

Did you ever wonder why they weren't given as much ice time and powerplay time as Higgins? Could it be that Higgins is a better player? Armstrong, for instance, played half a season on Crosby's wing and put up good numbers. He never recaptured that success. If he's so good, why hasn't he reproduced that rookie season? Higgins, on the other hand has increased his points per game in each of his three NHL seasons. It's not like he didn't earn ice time and it's not like Armstrong lost it for no reason. And then there is leadership. Higgins wore an "A" in only his 3rd NHL season, and that says a lot about a player in my opinion.

When Armstrong starts consistently outproducing Higgins, then I'll change my mind. But he has to show he's a better player before I believe it.

P.S. I think the phrase you are looking for is "It doesn't surprise me in the least..."

First off, I am a Higgins fan, and the argument I am creating is based on my comparison.

If I can, you can drop the homerism.

Higgins improved from 0.62 PPG to 0.63 PPG this season?

Higgins did not improve this season, I thought he regressed, and many on this board expressed that as well.

Look at his numbers. He received essentially the same PP time and the same ice time and put up almost identical PPG averages

2006-07

3:14 minutes on the PP, 17:54 TOI

2007-08

3:12 minutes on the PP, 17:57 TOI

So sell it anyway you want. I can create a whole argument that Higgins has plateaud and will never be more than a

second to third liner on a good team. Just as easy as your "Armstrong is not good enough for the PP nonsense"

Higgins is a perfectly good example based on their careers to this point to create a comparable for the return in a Hossa deal.

I don't give a shit if you think Higgins is better, it is irrelevant. A solid argument can be made that they are close to equal in

value, wether you like it or not. As for Armstrong is not good enough for the PP, lame. Unless you watch Penguins games as

intently as you do Habs games, you are talking out your ass based on stats. The stats back my argument.

But seeing as you watch your Blue Jackets and Habs so intently, I find it unlikely that you are tuning into every Pens game.

PS. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would correct something as stupid as that. You got the point, and you pointing

it out is pretentious. Quick, scan my post for a spelling mistake or an improperly placed comma, because I am sure they are there.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Wamsley01

[Fanpuck33]

As for Armstrong is not good enough for the PP, lame. Unless you watch Penguins games as

intently as you do Habs games, you are talking out your ass based on stats.

The stats back my argument.

I do watch the Penguins more than the Habs, they're on TV a lot more. Remember you're talking to someone in Ohio.

If Armstrong was good enough for the powerplay, then they would have been playing him there. If he were, why would they keep him off the ice? If he was good enough to play on the 1st or 2nd line, why wasn't he playing there? As I pointed out, he played very well when he was on Crosby's line. I have to believe if he had continued to play well the next season that they wouldn't have had to try players like Michel Ouellet on Crosby's wing. I have to believe there was a reason he "toiled" on the 3rd or 4th line instead of playing on a scoring line.

If you believe the stats back your argument, then you sure are looking at them differently than I am. And I'd have to say that unless you follow Armstrong as closely as Higgins, then you're talking out of your ass as well based on stats.

So sell it anyway you want. I can create a whole argument that Higgins has plateaud and will never be more than a

second to third liner on a good team. Just as easy as your "Armstrong is not good enough for the PP nonsense"

Creating an argument that Higgins has plateaued would be no different than saying Armstrong plateaued as a rookie and has gone down hill since then. Both may or may not be true. Only time will tell. Like I said, if Armstrong starts outproducing Higgins regularly, I'll be more than willing to admit I was wrong.

PS. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would correct something as stupid as that. You got the point, and you pointing

it out is pretentious. Quick, scan my post for a spelling mistake or an improperly placed comma, because I am sure they are there.

My favorite would be your insistence to use "their" when "there" should be used.

[Ecurb]

Of course they are not equal

Armstrong has 109 pts in 199 games and Higgins has 128 pts in 225 games.

A point every 0.55 games for Armstrong as opposed to the vastly superior 0.57 of Chris Higgins.

Higgins gets ample PP time and has played with Koivu for the last 2 years. Armstrong has done

alot of his damage toiling on the 3rd and 4th line for Pittsburgh and the year he did receive a PP

chance almost averaged a point per game.

I am a big Chris Higgins fan, but you cannot tell me that they are not comparable in establishing

the compensation that Pittsburgh gave up from a Montreal perspective. They are close in age,

they have comparable production and certain individual strengths offset others.

I removed my homer goggles and I stand by the comparison

Remove the 40 points Armstrong got in his first 47 games when

playing on Crosby's wing and those numbers look a whole lot

different.

I know of NO 4th line player that averages 16+ mins a game.

I think a more valid comparison would be Lapierre and Armstrong.

[Wamsley01]

I do watch the Penguins more than the Habs, they're on TV a lot more. Remember you're talking to someone in Ohio.

If Armstrong was good enough for the powerplay, then they would have been playing him there. If he were, why would they keep him off the ice? If he was good enough to play on the 1st or 2nd line, why wasn't he playing there? As I pointed out, he played very well when he was on Crosby's line. I have to believe if he had continued to play well the next season that they wouldn't have had to try players like Michel Ouellet on Crosby's wing. I have to believe there was a reason he "toiled" on the 3rd or 4th line instead of playing on a scoring line.

If you believe the stats back your argument, then you sure are looking at them differently than I am. And I'd have to say that unless you follow Armstrong as closely as Higgins, then you're talking out of your ass as well based on stats.

Creating an argument that Higgins has plateaued would be no different than saying Armstrong plateaued as a rookie and has gone down hill since then. Both may or may not be true. Only time will tell. Like I said, if Armstrong starts outproducing Higgins regularly, I'll be more than willing to admit I was wrong.

My favourite would be your insistence to use "their" when "there" should be used.

All I said I was doing from the start was creating a comparable. I used stats as a comparable because I do not

follow the Pen closely, and the stats are very comparable.

Armstrong averaged close to the same production over his career and in his rookie year received over

3 minutes PP time per game (essentially what Higgins receives now). In 2006 he had time on the 1st unit

because of the absence of Lemieux and Palffy and was moved in and out with Leclair, Ouellet

and Malone. He produced close to a point per game and had his PP time dramatically cut and was removed

permanantly from the 1st unit PP with the arrival of Malkin. So I just did not assume that he was NOT GOOD ENOUGH for

power play time. Their could be all types of factors. One thing I do know (Crosby or not) he produced when given

ample opportunity on special teams. That cannot be just dismissed as fluke.

And Ecurb, you cannot just throw out a season to help make an argument. That season is the only season where

Armstrong received equal PP minutes to Higgins which is a major factor in a player's production.

As for Higgins, I thought he had a better 2007. He started off dominant, suffered a high ankle sprain that hurt his production

on his return and then suffered a shoulder injury and played the last quarter of the season with a seperated shoulder or collarbone

(not sure exact injury). Yet his production essentially matched his healthy 2008 campaign. I would be interested to see his production

with 56 Minutes of PP time all season. Seeing as half his points came from the powerplay it would dramatically change the perception

people have of him. Many posters on here have wondered if he is better suited to a 3rd line role, so I don't see how what I am saying

is ridiculous or far fetched.

But it isn't like Habs fans overrate their own players. Koivu better than Sundin, Kovalev irreplaceable, Huet a top 5 goalie in the league

etc etc etc. It is obvious you disagree and I am done hijacking the thread.

As for grammer. Correct away. If I was an english major, maybe it would really bother me. But it is lame, and as long

as a thought is formulated and communicated effectively it is unimportant how many spelling mistakes or grammar errors

are made.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Wamsley01

[Habsfan]

Would you trade Higgins, Lapierre, Fischer and the first rounder that landed Tanguay for 2 Wins in the Cup

Finals and Dupuis?

I for one, was happy to see that Bob wasn't willing to sell the farm just to acquire a rental player like Hossa at the trade deadline.

Making the finals is not a good enough reason to trade away 3 young talents and a 1st rounder for a player who was gonna become a UFA 3 months later.

Had Hossa had 2 or 3 years left on his contract, then i'd say that it would have been worth it, but for 3 months... no thanks!

[SAKS-AVENUE]

No matter how you twist things around about Sundin or Hossa. We NEED A SNIPER. We have been lacking that for years. There is enough young talent on this team to survive a decent season and make the play-offs but a player that all opposing teams would mark and cover would really open up the ice for our kids and that's what we need badly. I'd match Vancouver's price and roll on with the season. 2 friggin years is nothing. Who else are we going to get? There is no-one. All guys that would make a difference are tied up for years. Go for it Bob!!!!! We can open up cap space next summer and only worry about that then.

[Habsfan]

We NEED A SNIPER.

Who's to say that A. Kosty won't become that sniper?

I'd match Vancouver's price and roll on with the season. 2 friggin years is nothing. Who else are we going to get? There is no-one. All guys that would make a difference are tied up for years. Go for it Bob!!!!! We can open up cap space next summer and only worry about that then.

So you'd risk losing Higgins and Komi next year?