Chris Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I could be wrong but as others say, i think BG is working the phones to get a centre. Remeber Dallas is trying to move Richards contract, so Hamrlik would have to go for salary reasons. Pleks, Kosty bros Hamrlik for a Richards +. Something like that. I see no way to get Marleau unless there is a third team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I really cant see anybody wanting Hamrlik unless he is doing someones wife... specially at over 5 mil... Does he not have a partial NTC? There are 17 teams that he has a NTC for, meaning there are 12 teams he can be traded to without being consulted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Latendresse Gomez Gionta Cammalleri Plekanec AKostitsyn Chipchura Lapierre Moen (the checking line) Pacioretty/SKost Metropolit D'Ago Agree on Camm being on the second line.. and also getting out of the natural tweeking of Lapierre-Lats combo... if Lats is to develop into a top 6 forward then Lapierre would have to become at least a second line C (if that doesnt span out) then Lats by deduction will be removed from Lapierre's side. Your fourth line scares me tho... best case scenario is an optimal SKost Metrop and D'agostini... more like a (Carbo desperate second line combo) than a 4th line. but thats just MO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Hicks is in trouble. the Stars are not. Gillet was in trouble but Gainey still signed Martin at 1.5M And I must remind you that officially, the team still belongs to Gillet. I'm sure that, Hicks in trouble or not, the Stars will end up spending close to the cap. We disagree on that - Hicks reportedly received emergency funding from MLB to keep the Rangers afloat, it's reasonable to assume that if he's doing that for one, he can't have a mysterious cash flow to keep the Stars spending to the cap. Currently, they have a payroll of $48.7 million with 22 skaters (8 d-men at the moment too). They're not adding 8 million anytime soon unless there's a real good reason to do so. Is Hamrlik that? Personally, I'm not too sure, though as I said earlier they certainly can use him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I really cant see anybody wanting Hamrlik unless he is doing someones wife... specially at over 5 mil... Does he not have a partial NTC? The Stars owe us one!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 We disagree on that - Hicks reportedly received emergency funding from MLB to keep the Rangers afloat, it's reasonable to assume that if he's doing that for one, he can't have a mysterious cash flow to keep the Stars spending to the cap. Currently, they have a payroll of $48.7 million with 22 skaters (8 d-men at the moment too). They're not adding 8 million anytime soon unless there's a real good reason to do so. Is Hamrlik that? Personally, I'm not too sure, though as I said earlier they certainly can use him. so you think he's irresponsibly taking all of the Stars revenue and putting it in his bank account.... and when he has to draw pay-checks, he just does it from his personal bank account? Hypothetically, using fictive numbers, If the Stars are generating 100M per year. and the expenses (arena, staff, whatnot), before the players salaries, amount to 40M... Hicks can still spend 56M without being in trouble. Unless he did something immensely stupid and... almost impossible to do : Borrow SO MUCH in account of the Stars, put in his account to pay his bills (e.g. Soccer fiasco and other businesses) and now the Stars are sooooooooooo deep in the red that they can't repay their debt... which indeed is Hicks' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 so you think he's irresponsibly taking all of the Stars revenue and putting it in his bank account.... and when he has to draw pay-checks, he just does it from his personal bank account? Hypothetically, using fictive numbers, If the Stars are generating 100M per year. and the expenses (arena, staff, whatnot), before the players salaries, amount to 40M... Hicks can still spend 56M without being in trouble. Unless he did something immensely stupid and... almost impossible to do : Borrow SO MUCH in account of the Stars, put in his account to pay his bills (e.g. Soccer fiasco and other businesses) and now the Stars are sooooooooooo deep in the red that they can't repay their debt... which indeed is Hicks' I read earlier that he defaulted on a $515 M loan a couple months ago - doesn't matter what account the money's coming from, he needs cash flow and doesn't have it. (Link: http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/272962.html) Talk of the team possibly needing Chapter 11 just 2 months ago - http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/632760 One of his other businesses possibly facing dissolution: http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/1373491.html Texas Rangers borrowing money to meet payroll: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_leagu...?urn=mlb,174379 You gotta cut back somewhere to pay off these loans - he had to pay if I'm not mistaken $75 M in interest to convince the Scottish bank to refinance the Liverpool loan (yet again). With all of this in mind, there's no way he can spend to the cap, the same way he can't head for the luxury tax in baseball. You can't spend the max on one asset while struggling to keep others afloat. And to finish, a quote from Hicks saying they won't go near the cap: Hicks wouldn't say where they'd fall in the range of the basement and ceiling of the cap, arguing it was too early to know. "But teams won't act like that cap is a magnet anymore," Hicks said. "That just doesn't work." So you can bet the Stars won't be too close to that ceiling. We just don't know yet how close to the bottom of that spectrum they'll be. Source: http://starsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2...ouldnt-imp.html And now that I've completely forgotten why I've rambled so much about the situation of the Dallas ownership, time to move on I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I read earlier that he defaulted on a $515 M loan a couple months ago - doesn't matter what account the money's coming from, he needs cash flow and doesn't have it. (Link: http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/272962.html) Talk of the team possibly needing Chapter 11 just 2 months ago - http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/632760 You gotta cut back somewhere to pay off these loans - he had to pay if I'm not mistaken $75 M in interest to convince the Scottish bank to refinance the Liverpool loan (yet again). With all of this in mind, there's no way he can spend to the cap, the same way he can't head for the luxury tax in baseball. ok, so he's some kind of Conrad Black (however this is legal since he's the sole shareholder) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacksonJ Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) here is another direction BG could go. http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=286037 Vaclav Prospal has been bought out, and I think we would be pretty smart to offer him a short term deal. He is 6'2 and could be the big winger that BG wanted to play up on the first line. He went deep into the playoffs 2 years ago (lets forget who he beat in the 2nd round), so he has experience. This would be a long term deal, he would just be keeping it warm until either Lat or Pac can step up. He is a 600 point man (okay 599), so we would have to dump some salary, but it would be worth it to have a proven guy up their with gomez and gio. Any opinions? (and don't give me that tampa reject crap) Edited July 29, 2009 by JacksonJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Small note on Marleau: Just a day after posting a rumour that involved three teams and San Jose Sharks Captain Patrick Marleau, I am now being told that it is very unlikely the Marleau would waive his NTC to go to Montreal or Ottawa for that matter. http://www.senschirp.ca/2009/07/wednesday-updatesort-of.html Just a blog site so it's definitely not carved in stone. That being said, I've heard numerous times that Marleau doesn't want to go to Ottawa (and this is going back a couple years), it's certainly not unreasonable to assume Montreal wouldn't be desirable as well. (I'm guessing he'd prefer to stay out West). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Small note on Marleau: http://www.senschirp.ca/2009/07/wednesday-updatesort-of.html Just a blog site so it's definitely not carved in stone. That being said, I've heard numerous times that Marleau doesn't want to go to Ottawa (and this is going back a couple years), it's certainly not unreasonable to assume Montreal wouldn't be desirable as well. (I'm guessing he'd prefer to stay out West). I personally have a MC. A movement clause : PLEASE MOVE ME TO CALIFORNIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Ah well. We could do worse than Plekanec. I think we need a winger more than we need another centre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacksonJ Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Ah well. We could do worse than Plekanec. I think we need a winger more than we need another centre. which is where prospal comes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soflhabfan Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 prospal is a pretty useful player. i wouldn't mind seeing him with the habs for the right price. otherwise lets see who can win jobs in training camp.its not as if he's a world beater, but he could probably chip in with 15-20 goals under the right fit.can we get this offseason over with???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy Ryder Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 He is tall, but soft, doesn't hustle to go back in his zone and misses way too many scoring opportunities. Nah i don't see him in Bleu, Blanc Rouge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Prospal > Czerkawski. but... in the same softener category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigRedC Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Prospal > Czerkawski. but... in the same softener category. Don't you DARE rip Czerkawaski. The guy was unstoppable, the Polish Prince. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REV-G Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I keep hearing from different places that the Canadiens are quietly yet persistantly working on a deal with the Sharks, so there must be something to it. Doug Wilson is under pressure from the media and bloggers to make significant changes and so far he's done little. I think the Marleau for Plekanec and Halak trade is still a real option. In order to clear space I heard that Hamrlik could be the move Gainey makes. But could we let Hamrlik go and have enough younger talent to move everyone up a notch and still be successful? Or in return for Hamrlik in a trade could we get a younger cheaper defenceman in return who could be in the top 6? I have to admit that the thought of Marleau and Gomez being our top 2 centers is exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 In order to clear space I heard that Hamrlik could be the move Gainey makes. But could we let Hamrlik go and have enough younger talent to move everyone up a notch and still be successful? Or in return for Hamrlik in a trade could we get a younger cheaper defenceman in return who could be in the top 6? Or, can they use the cap space (if any) saved from a potential Hamrlik deal and go sign one of the few UFA d-men left? (Schneider and Seidenberg come to mind there). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REV-G Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I haven't done the math but I would assume that if they moved Hamrlik, Halak and Plekanec and traded for Marleau they'd have enough left to bring in that kind of d-man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I haven't done the math but I would assume that if they moved Hamrlik, Halak and Plekanec and traded for Marleau they'd have enough left to bring in that kind of d-man. Yep, but not at too much of a pricetag, about $2 million, give or take a couple hundred thousand. That would be offset most likely by whatever player would have to be sent back for Hamrlik, as I can't see a team taking on his salary for just a prospect/pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Yep, but not at too much of a pricetag, about $2 million, give or take a couple hundred thousand. That would be offset most likely by whatever player would have to be sent back for Hamrlik, as I can't see a team taking on his salary for just a prospect/pick. Metropolit can easily be written off, so can Laraque (although he has a NMC? but my guess is that he'll call it a career sooner or later and that he'll spend most of the season on LTIR) I also think that with the BIG guys we have up, with O'Byrne history of problems in MTL and with 2-3 young guns ready to make the jump with the bulldogs, that O'Byrne might not be kept as a reserve. that someone easier to recall and re-send down will have that role. Otherwise what? we ask Mara to sit to watch O'Byrne make more blunders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Metropolit can easily be written off, so can Laraque (although he has a NMC? but my guess is that he'll call it a career sooner or later and that he'll spend most of the season on LTIR) I also think that with the BIG guys we have up, with O'Byrne history of problems in MTL and with 2-3 young guns ready to make the jump with the bulldogs, that O'Byrne might not be kept as a reserve. that someone easier to recall and re-send down will have that role. Otherwise what? we ask Mara to sit to watch O'Byrne make more blunders? Define what you mean by written off - do you mean bought out, as Laraque would contest a buyout due to his injuries. And if Metropolit gets bought out, someone has to take his spot on the roster, meaning the savings will be minimal at best. (Or you could mean something different and I'm just rambling here...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Define what you mean by written off - do you mean bought out, as Laraque would contest a buyout due to his injuries. And if Metropolit gets bought out, someone has to take his spot on the roster, meaning the savings will be minimal at best. (Or you could mean something different and I'm just rambling here...) Metro : waivers... or otherwise Hamilton Laraque : If he has a NMC (as I believe he does), well just LTIR, as he will likely be always injured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Metro : waivers... or otherwise Hamilton Laraque : If he has a NMC (as I believe he does), well just LTIR, as he will likely be always injured. Laraque was hurt or playing hurt all of last year and never qualified for LTIR - it's a lot more difficult than just saying, "He's out for a while, let's LTIR him." LTIR also only works when you're over the cap, as we were last season when we got Schneider. If Laraque was LTIR'ed but we chose to recall Alex Henry who makes the league minimum, it would most likely be futile. As for his NMC status, that's false. He has a limited NTC, as shown here: http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?show...st&p=325093. 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.