Jump to content
Fanpuck33

Permanent Rumour Thread

Recommended Posts

All I have to say about Gaborick and the Habs: if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Plus the price, as quoted by Hickey in today's Gazette of Higgins and Halak is WAAAAAY to high IMHO :ghg:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're criticizing his playoff numbers? You were one of the ones who said that Hossa's crappy playoff numbers should not be a factor in our talks to acquire him. By the way, this Gaborik situation is virtually identical to the Hossa one and that had a lot more support. It was also well-known that Hossa would be going for 8 million dollars (he winded up taking a bit less to sign with Detroit but he would have wanted 8+ from any other team) and the trade rumours also included some worthwhile parts (a 1st that brought in Tanguay, Ryan O'Byrne, Lapierre).

Actually I didn't. I just listed some of the things that in my opinion make a franchise player, and I don't think Marian Gaborik is one (that doesn't eman he doesn't have any of those qualities). He's a great goal scoring threat and he's fantastic 1-on-1, but I don't think you should build around Marian Gaborik. However, that doesn't mean he can't be part of a great team, or maybe even be your best offensive threat.

What I call a franchise player is much more than (ex. I don't think of Kovalchuk as a franchise player), and they are quite rare...

:rolleyes: He went a point per game and was our best forward. Why are people still complaining about his playoff performance?

But you are right that he is playing exactly like he did last year but just isn't getting points.

Actually I thought he was quite ineffective overall despite the numbers, and I also thought we saw a good indication of the lact of hockey sense I was talking about. Both the Bruins and the Flyers figured out that the Kovalev line had most of its success last season with long, precise lateral passes, often close to the net; both teams simply blocked the front of the net with sound positional play - at the expense of the blue line - to prevent these passes. The result was that Kovalev either couldn't make that lateral pass, or it would be intercepted, and instead of adjusting his game to this he always looked for that pass, waited too long, and ended up cornered and losing puck control.

Another result of this was that most of our shot opportunities came from the blue line, with a high shot total, but most were either blocked or easily stopped by the goalie (we made Biron look much better than he actually was).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ex. I don't think of Kovalchuk as a franchise player

I can understand when you say that you don't consider Gaborik to be a "franchise player", but to say that Kovalchuk is NOT....that's where you lose me. THe kid has averaged 42 goals per season since he joined the NHL (in a time where 40 goal scorers are EXTREMELY rare). He has averaged 1 point per game on horrible/lousy team. He's big, he's fast, he isn't afraid of giving/receiving hits and has probably the best snap/wrist shot in the NHL. All of this and he just turned 25.

My guess is that you probably don't consider Mario Lemieux to be a franchise player either!?!?! :rolleyes::rolleyes::unsure::huh:

Edited by Habsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand when you say that you don't consider Gaborik to be a "franchise player", but to say that Kovalchuk is NOT....that's where you lose me. THe kid has averaged 42 goals per season since he joined the NHL (in a time where 40 goal scorers are EXTREMELY rare). He has averaged 1 point per game on horrible/lousy team. He's big, he's fast, he isn't afraid of giving/receiving hits and has probably the best snap/wrist shot in the NHL. All of this and he just turned 25.

My guess is that you probably don't consider Mario Lemieux to be a franchise player either!?!?! :rolleyes::rolleyes::unsure::huh:

Mario Lemieux was definitely a franchise player...

Kovalchuk is a highly skilled, spectacular goal scoring winger, which is awesome, but I don't think he makes his linemates significantly better like Lemieux could (they'll get a few extra points riding the coattails of his individual game breaking skills, but I don’t think he’ll utilize them to his and their advantage), I don’t think he can carry a team on his shoulders like Thornton did last year, I’ve never seen him turn into an unstoppable hockey machine like Iginla does at clutch times, I don’t think he can control the pace of the game like Lidstrom does, and I don’t think he’s someone who can easily adapt to any style or linemates you’ll throw at him.

There is no doubt that Kovachuk is a great superstar offensive player… I just think there are players that belong in a category above him, the franchise players… and abive those are Wayne Greztky, Mario Lemieux, and Bobby Orr…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kovalchuk is a highly skilled, spectacular goal scoring winger, which is awesome, but I don't think he makes his linemates significantly better like Lemieux could (they'll get a few extra points riding the coattails of his individual game breaking skills, but I don’t think he’ll utilize them to his and their advantage), I don’t think he can carry a team on his shoulders like Thornton did last year, I’ve never seen him turn into an unstoppable hockey machine like Iginla does at clutch times, I don’t think he can control the pace of the game like Lidstrom does, and I don’t think he’s someone who can easily adapt to any style or linemates you’ll throw at him.

Put Kovalchuk on a team like the Sharks had last year, and he'd probably get an extra 25-30 pionts per year. Put Thornton on a team like the Thrashers had last yer, and he couldn't make that team make the playoffs even if his life depended on it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Put Kovalchuk on a team like the Sharks had last year, and he'd probably get an extra 25-30 pionts per year. Put Thornton on a team like the Thrashers had last yer, and he couldn't make that team make the playoffs even if his life depended on it!

I'm not sure Kovalchuk would have gotten much more points, but the Sharks would probably have made the playoffs with Kovalchuk instead of Thornton, although Big Joe is one of the very few players (Nabokov and Rivet) who wasn't a big diappointment, and he did carry that team on his shoulders last season because the Marleaus, Carles, Vlasics, Michaleks, Cheechoos, Pavleski were too often nowhere to be seen. As for the Trashers, I'm not sure if Thornton would have been enough to make the playoffs, but I think they would have been much closer.

Besides, I don't care that much how many points he gets, even at 60 goals and 110 points I wouldn't call him a franchise player anyway, just be a high scoring winger who had a huge season. Again, he's no doubt a superstar forward, an elite offensive player with game breaking skills, but he just doesn't fit my personal definition of a franchise player, players who do more than just put up points on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides, I don't care that much how many points he gets, even at 60 goals and 110 points I wouldn't call him a franchise player anyway, just be a high scoring winger who had a huge season. Again, he's no doubt a superstar forward, an elite offensive player with game breaking skills, but he just doesn't fit my personal definition of a franchise player, players who do more than just put up points on the board.

So, if I understand correctly, you wouldn't consider Guy LaFleur a Franchise player???

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're nuts!! COUCOU!!! :D;););):wacko::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But circumstantial evidence says it was Montreal that spoke with Minnesota.

I doubt it, because for that to be true we would have to assume that someone from Montreal's head office leaked this info to the aforementioned newspaper. I don't think leaking stuff to the media fits Gainey's modus operandi. Another team perhaps, but I highly doubt that a GM who's so notoriously averse to the media would suddenly open up to a newspaper in another city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I didn't. I just listed some of the things that in my opinion make a franchise player, and I don't think Marian Gaborik is one (that doesn't eman he doesn't have any of those qualities). He's a great goal scoring threat and he's fantastic 1-on-1, but I don't think you should build around Marian Gaborik. However, that doesn't mean he can't be part of a great team, or maybe even be your best offensive threat.

What I call a franchise player is much more than (ex. I don't think of Kovalchuk as a franchise player), and they are quite rare...

Then you just have a different definition of what a franchise player is. By your definition there are max 5 of them in the world. By mine, there are probably more like 20 (including guys like Kovalchuk, Gaborik, Hossa, superKovalev, Zetterberg, ...).

Actually I thought he was quite ineffective overall despite the numbers, and I also thought we saw a good indication of the lact of hockey sense I was talking about. Both the Bruins and the Flyers figured out that the Kovalev line had most of its success last season with long, precise lateral passes, often close to the net; both teams simply blocked the front of the net with sound positional play - at the expense of the blue line - to prevent these passes. The result was that Kovalev either couldn't make that lateral pass, or it would be intercepted, and instead of adjusting his game to this he always looked for that pass, waited too long, and ended up cornered and losing puck control.

Another result of this was that most of our shot opportunities came from the blue line, with a high shot total, but most were either blocked or easily stopped by the goalie (we made Biron look much better than he actually was).

He did adjust his game, he winded up playing on his off wing a lot more often. Remember that OT winner he scored on the PP off a slapper? That came from the left side, he's usually on the right.

It was more like the rest of the team standing still not knowing what to do once their favourite set play was being blocked. Boston did a good job of shutting down our powerplay because they knew about the diagonal pass from Markov to Kovalev and they knew the centering pass from Kovalev to the front of the net. Without those two plays, we had to improvise - if there was no pass option then there can be no pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you just have a different definition of what a franchise player is. By your definition there are max 5 of them in the world. By mine, there are probably more like 20 (including guys like Kovalchuk, Gaborik, Hossa, superKovalev, Zetterberg, ...).

If you are talking in regards of a franchise player worth MAX cap money. Then I do think there are only 4-5 of them.

The NBA has a problem with to many guys getting MAX money. Just because you are the best player on a team does

not make you a maximum player, yet almost every NBA team is paying 1 franchise guy the largest amount allowable.

The NHL may fall in to the same trap. As far as I am concerned the only guys I would max out in the NHL right now

with no questions asked would be Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom and Brodeur, maybe Iginla (for some reason owners do not max

out goalies and d-men, hence Lidstrom and Brodeur not making 9-10 per season).

THere are a ton of guys on the cusp of that level like: Phaneuf, Luongo, Malkin, Lecavalier and Thornton.

If you are going to the 20% limit, then you better be sure that player is a guy who will lead you to a Stanley Cup,

because if you invest in a 10 year deal, you only get one chance to pay a guy franchise $$.

Philly are paying Timmonen and Briere 6M+ each. When Coburn eventually re-ups for big money they are going to run

into all types of problems and have no money to pay an elite goalie AGAIN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion.

But a franchise player is always the one that the GM build his team around. I don't think it have to be a great player. Also, the concept of franshise player is dying. This is because of there's more talented players out there and the fact that GM's has another aproach theese days.

Brodeaur and is the only player in the NHL today that defines that. Everyone else could be traded or replaced. Marty is the Devils in persona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, inform me in my lazy boy how the Habs could keep this team together for the near future by allowing two

cheap productive assets to leave with all the raises due in the next 2 years. Last time I checked Begin, Kostopolous,

Dandenault and Boullion make 5.5M combined. THAT, is not going to get it done. Toss in Langs 4M and it is 9M.

Five players to cover Gaborik's salary.

Gaborik - 8M

Markov - 5.75M

Hamrlik - 5.5M

A. Kostitsyn - 3.25M

22.5M on 4 players. Now add in UFA/RFAs with modest raises or the same 2008 salary.

Tanguay - 5.25M

Koivu - 4.75M

Kovalev - 4.5M

Plekanec - 3.5M

Komisarek - 4.5M

Latendresse - 2M

47M on 10 players. Add in the players already locked in.

Laraque - 1.5M

Lapierre - 680K

S. Kostitsyn - 817K

J. Gorges - 1.1M

R. O'Byrne - 942K

C. Price - 2.2M with expected bonuses

That totals out to about 54M for 16 players. So who goes? Where are the remaining 9 players making the minimum

coming from? What do you do when Price gets 5M per and Sergei 3M per?

Fortunately Gainey has his eye to 2-3 years in the future when a stupid move like a Gaborik deal would start

to majorly impact this franchise. You can have your 1 year window and fantasy dream, I would prefer to live

in the 2009 NHL and compete in a 6-10 year championship window.

I'd add that you're probably underestimating costs in this section:

Now add in UFA/RFAs with modest raises or the same 2008 salary.

Tanguay - 5.25M

Koivu - 4.75M

Kovalev - 4.5M

Plekanec - 3.5M

Komisarek - 4.5M

Latendresse - 2M

We'll be lucky if Komi signs at 4.5M, in my opinion. He could command easily $6 mil on the open market, given how stupid GMs are (and frankly, Komi at $6 mil is a better investment than a lot of the defenceman signings we saw last summer). Ditto Kovalev, who likely could command over $5 mil easily as a UFA. Koivu, what if he has another career year playing with Tanguay? Will he settle for under $5 mil? If Pleks has another season like last year's, he also could be considered underpaid at $3.5...

Personally, I think Habs' fans should be thinking less in terms of adding some expensive big name, and more in terms of adjusting to the probable LOSS of either Kovy or Tanguay (certainly Lang) after this year is done, in order to pay for raises to our other UFAs/RFAs. To me, the most likely scenario is we lose at least one of our bigger names, and next season rely on one or two young guns to step up as replacements. Which, frankly, is how it has to work in a cap system.

As for "franchise players," I'm with Wamsley (as usual). Crosby, Ovechkin...probably Iginla, Lecavalier...there's very few. If you consider Kovalchuk one, you have to consider Heatly one, and Alfredsson for that matter (plus Spezza? How does a team blow chunks like the Sens if they have three 'franchise players??'). Indeed, I'd be willing to suggest that even Lafleur may not have been such a player. He was more the kind of explosive X-factor that turns alread-strong teams into champions. After all, the dynasty of the 1970s wasn't really "built" around The Flower so much as the Big Three and Robinson in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be willing to suggest that even Lafleur may not have been such a player. He was more the kind of explosive X-factor that turns alread-strong teams into champions. After all, the dynasty of the 1970s wasn't really "built" around The Flower so much as the Big Three and Robinson in particular.

You're kidding? Right??

6 Consecutive 120+point season, 6 consecutive 50+ goal seasons, he was THE MAN on that team. True the big three were important, but it was Lafleur that scored all those goals and prepared Steve Shutts goals. We have a tendancy of thinking that Lafleur was only a goal scorer, but during those wonderful seasons, he averaged 74 assists per year. IN other words he prepared as many goals as he scored!

IN the 70's, Lafleur was a top 3 player in the league,(led the league in scoring 3 years in a row and was in the top 3, 5 years in a row) if that's not enough to make you a franchise player, then I don'T know what is!

Edited by Habsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're kidding? Right??

6 Consecutive 120+point season, 6 consecutive 50+ goal seasons, he was THE MAN on that team. True the big three were important, but it was Lafleur that scored all those goals and prepared Steve Shutts goals. We have a tendancy of thinking that Lafleur was only a goal scorer, but during those wonderful seasons, he averaged 74 assists per year. IN other words he prepared as many goals as he scored!

IN the 70's, Lafleur was a top 3 player in the league, if that's not enough to make you a franchise player, then I don'T know what is!

Hee hee, I had a feeling that would be controversial ^_^

Hey, I won't insist on the point (especially since my memories of the Flower in his prime are hazy at best). I think of him more as a devastating gamebreaker than as a "guy you build a whole team around" but that may indeed be delusional. I'd be interested in hearing what the greybeards think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hee hee, I had a feeling that would be controversial ^_^

Hey, I won't insist on the point (especially since my memories of the Flower in his prime are hazy at best). I think of him more as a devastating gamebreaker than as a "guy you build a whole team around" but that may indeed be delusional. I'd be interested in hearing what the greybeards think.

With this comment, they think you'd better start walking; we're warming up the walkers and canes. Don't make me put in my teeth at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are talking in regards of a franchise player worth MAX cap money. Then I do think there are only 4-5 of them.

The NBA has a problem with to many guys getting MAX money. Just because you are the best player on a team does

not make you a maximum player, yet almost every NBA team is paying 1 franchise guy the largest amount allowable.

The NHL may fall in to the same trap. As far as I am concerned the only guys I would max out in the NHL right now

with no questions asked would be Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom and Brodeur, maybe Iginla (for some reason owners do not max

out goalies and d-men, hence Lidstrom and Brodeur not making 9-10 per season).

THere are a ton of guys on the cusp of that level like: Phaneuf, Luongo, Malkin, Lecavalier and Thornton.

If you are going to the 20% limit, then you better be sure that player is a guy who will lead you to a Stanley Cup,

because if you invest in a 10 year deal, you only get one chance to pay a guy franchise $$.

Philly are paying Timmonen and Briere 6M+ each. When Coburn eventually re-ups for big money they are going to run

into all types of problems and have no money to pay an elite goalie AGAIN.

For one thing, 8M isn't the 20% max. He'd still be making less than Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin, your franchise players. A guy like Briere is no franchise player but he is worth 6.5M - that's star 1st line forward money and that's what he is. Timonen is just overpaid.

A franchise player is basically an elite talent who dominates his shifts. It doesn't necessarily have to be someone who can make a bad team good all by himself. Crosby, Ovechkin and Luongo have all been in that situation and still been a bottom 10 team.

But does the definition of a franchise player even matter? The point is that Gaborik is probably on par with Kovalchuk when he's healthy - yes, when he's healthy, just like how we pay Koivu a rate that he can only earn when totally healthy - and would be the first step in "adjusting to the probable loss of either Kovy or Tanguay," as TCC puts it. I actually think Koivu is the most likely to leave out of the three. Gaborik would instantly allow us to let Kovalev walk and still have a better team than we have now.

It would certainly give us cap problems. But look at our team. After Koivu, Kovalev, Lang and all the depth players are all gone... will we be a competitive team with only Higgins, Plekanec, Kostitsyns, Latendresse and Pacioretty? We could certainly be a playoff team if you combine that with our future D and goaltending. But would we sustain our position as contenders over the next decade as everyone assumes we will? We'd have a pretty good top 6, a solid D and great goaltending - but somewhere along the way, we'd have to draft a star offensive forward or sign one to a big contract if we intend to remain contenders.

Anyway, Gainey is discussing this whether we like it or not. It's a big risk - but - it wouldn't be the end of the world. We'd be able to keep our core of young players together along with Gaborik. The trouble is that we'd have to be absolutely sure he's re-signing with us if we're going to give Higgins and Halak. If it's a question mark then we absolutely should not do it. But I think Gainey knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For one thing, 8M isn't the 20% max. He'd still be making less than Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin, your franchise players. A guy like Briere is no franchise player but he is worth 6.5M - that's star 1st line forward money and that's what he is. Timonen is just overpaid.

A franchise player is basically an elite talent who dominates his shifts. It doesn't necessarily have to be someone who can make a bad team good all by himself. Crosby, Ovechkin and Luongo have all been in that situation and still been a bottom 10 team.

But does the definition of a franchise player even matter? The point is that Gaborik is probably on par with Kovalchuk when he's healthy - yes, when he's healthy, just like how we pay Koivu a rate that he can only earn when totally healthy - and would be the first step in "adjusting to the probable loss of either Kovy or Tanguay," as TCC puts it. I actually think Koivu is the most likely to leave out of the three. Gaborik would instantly allow us to let Kovalev walk and still have a better team than we have now.

It would certainly give us cap problems. But look at our team. After Koivu, Kovalev, Lang and all the depth players are all gone... will we be a competitive team with only Higgins, Plekanec, Kostitsyns, Latendresse and Pacioretty? We could certainly be a playoff team if you combine that with our future D and goaltending. But would we sustain our position as contenders over the next decade as everyone assumes we will? We'd have a pretty good top 6, a solid D and great goaltending - but somewhere along the way, we'd have to draft a star offensive forward or sign one to a big contract if we intend to remain contenders.

Anyway, Gainey is discussing this whether we like it or not. It's a big risk - but - it wouldn't be the end of the world. We'd be able to keep our core of young players together along with Gaborik. The trouble is that we'd have to be absolutely sure he's re-signing with us if we're going to give Higgins and Halak. If it's a question mark then we absolutely should not do it. But I think Gainey knows that.

Rumour is Gaborik turned down 8M, so my assumption he is looking for something more than that.

That would be closer to the max. With a plummeting Canadian dollar what is the cap going to be next season?

As for would we be contenders without Kovalev, Koivu etc. Why not? The Devils have managed to win

three Stanley Cups based around a franchise goalie and All-Star defensemen.

I think you are also placing a ceiling on the Kostitsyn's, Plekanec, Paccioretty, Latendresse, Higgins with the statement. There is no reason the youthful core and the right acquisitions that fit into whatever the team

philosophy is cannot be consistent contenders.

Edited by Wamsley01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canadian dollar shouldn't stay down too long. American investors are propping up the US dollar temporarily. I expect that in the next year, you will see commodities such as gold, silver, and oil skyrocket due to inflation from all of the money being printed randomly and with no backing. When that happens, Our dollar should follow oil and go up. Then we can pay for Gaborik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Canadian dollar shouldn't stay down too long. American investors are propping up the US dollar temporarily. I expect that in the next year, you will see commodities such as gold, silver, and oil skyrocket due to inflation from all of the money being printed randomly and with no backing. When that happens, Our dollar should follow oil and go up. Then we can pay for Gaborik.

The dollar will go up once the US bailout pushes through the system and banks aren't looking to buy US currency for access to the liquidity...of course, that's if any gains we might make aren't off-set by the sinking oil and commodities.

Of course, this may take a year...and in that time, league revenues will be down and the cap number could drop by a fair bit. Especially if attendance figures start to suffer as less people spend money on hockey games and merchandise when times are tough...

Edited by Zowpeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope the Habs stay away from Gaborik.

Missing games because of groin problems the

last 2 or 3 seasons, smells of chronic to me.

And, we have to give up major assets. And,

he's looking for a longterm deal for major

cap space or he goes UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The dollar will go up once the US bailout pushes through the system and banks aren't looking to buy US currency for access to the liquidity...of course, that's if any gains we might make aren't off-set by the sinking oil and commodities.

Of course, this may take a year...and in that time, league revenues will be down and the cap number could drop by a fair bit. Especially if attendance figures start to suffer as less people spend money on hockey games and merchandise when times are tough...

Good point about attendance figures. U.S. attendance could drop off as the pain from this crash sinks in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still unlikely that the cap would actually go DOWN next year. Most of the money for this upcoming season was already in the bank before the puck dropped... season ticket sales, TV money, advertising/sponsorships, etc. It's only walk up tickets and merch that aren't in the bank already.

All of these sales were made with the CDN dollar over $.90 USD as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point about attendance figures. U.S. attendance could drop off as the pain from this crash sinks in.

Lower attendance could actually be an opportunity for the NHL to increase its TV broadcasting revenues as more fans would watch the telecasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lower attendance could actually be an opportunity for the NHL to increase its TV broadcasting revenues as more fans would watch the telecasts.

I don't think that 5000-8000 less fans at the game gives you an opportunity to raise broadcasting prices...

Edited by JoeLassister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...