Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

My point is about the stategy. In Trotters case had he not gone to Europe, he would have been exposed to waivers had he not made the Habs, and in all likelyhood he would not have. The Habs just gained a year or two of control. I also think Dawes was close. Give him a year in Europe and bring him back next year a little more developed, with a better chance to stick.

It's a bit of a different situation, I'm not sure there's a comparison here. Dawes heading into this year had nearly 200 games of NHL experience and was 25 going in, not a whole lot of development left for him having been around as long as he has. Trotter had 2 games experience and was 23. One was somewhat of a proven player while Trotter was still an unknown especially coming to the pro game at a later age than Dawes. Dawes is a UFA come next offseason too as he'll turn 27 during the season, him going over all but ends his career with Montreal unless they can get him to sign next May/June (certainly a possibility though).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 20.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • dlbalr

    1338

  • The Chicoutimi Cucumber

    1309

  • Commandant

    1097

  • DON

    832

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, obviously he'd be acquired to play center.

The PK trade will never make sense.  You can keep Weber and price together until they are 50.  That is not going to change the fact that it was a horrible trade and a colossal mistake:  we lost the tr

Posted Images

If Trotter signs a one way deal, then I gotta expect a trade brewing.

The Habs don't just give out one-way contracts (unless it has an out clause for Europe), and the roster spots are filling up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trotter signs a one way deal, then I gotta expect a trade brewing.

The Habs don't just give out one-way contracts (unless it has an out clause for Europe), and the roster spots are filling up.

Either that or they know they're going to have to pay big to bring in the high end AHL guys so why not bring over someone they're familiar with that has played with some of the Bulldogs already? (Assuming he clears waivers of course.) As saskhab noted, he could very well be intended to be the Pouliot replacement. (And I will once again note there is 0 chance Pouliot gets qualified.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(And I will once again note there is 0 chance Pouliot gets qualified.)

This I don't get. His qualifying offer is what, 1.5 mill? Less than?

He's 24, decent size, former 1st rounder and put up 13 goals, and 30 points.

Still a bargain, and the cap space and roster spot isn't worth losing an asset for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This I don't get. His qualifying offer is what, 1.5 mill? Less than?

He's 24, decent size, former 1st rounder and put up 13 goals, and 30 points.

Still a bargain, and the cap space and roster spot isn't worth losing an asset for free.

It's a technicality. You may recall he wasn't qualified (for less) last year so after a poorer performance and a higher QO, he won't be this time around. It doesn't necessarily mean he won't be back (though given what happened at the end of last year, that alone should spell the end of his tenure) but it would be through non-conventional measures like last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a technicality. You may recall he wasn't qualified (for less) last year so after a poorer performance and a higher QO, he won't be this time around. It doesn't necessarily mean he won't be back (though given what happened at the end of last year, that alone should spell the end of his tenure) but it would be through non-conventional measures like last year.

I hope you're wrong, because if you are right then it is poor asset management.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're wrong, because if you are right then it is poor asset management.

Really? They gave him every opportunity to prove himself and he shat the bed. How is that poor asset management exactly? unless you are referring to trading Lats for him but Lats was going nowhere fast as well so it was a gamble, that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? They gave him every opportunity to prove himself and he shat the bed. How is that poor asset management exactly? unless you are referring to trading Lats for him but Lats was going nowhere fast as well so it was a gamble, that happens.

30 points, plus player, young, cheap, and with potential. He's only played on defensive-minded teams, and I imagine a team of a more free-wheeling style may want to give him a shot. Why dump him for nothing when you can probably get something for him?

We've had headcases leave this team before... in order of value of assets received in return: Hainsey, S Kostitsyn, Ribiero, and Grabovski. I'd rather get a Grabovski return for Pouliot than a Hainsey, but I'd even settle on a Kostitsyn return because it's still better than nothing.

I think that Pouliot's production is better than the 1.5 million saved and a roster spot gained by just outright releasing him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 points, plus player, young, cheap, and with potential. He's only played on defensive-minded teams, and I imagine a team of a more free-wheeling style may want to give him a shot. Why dump him for nothing when you can probably get something for him?

We've had headcases leave this team before... in order of value of assets received in return: Hainsey, S Kostitsyn, Ribiero, and Grabovski. I'd rather get a Grabovski return for Pouliot than a Hainsey, but I'd even settle on a Kostitsyn return because it's still better than nothing.

I think that Pouliot's production is better than the 1.5 million saved and a roster spot gained by just outright releasing him.

I would bring him back just for how he destroyed Krejci !

More seriously, I would definitely try to get something in return as well. If it is just for the possibility that he becomes a good player and that we still see Hainsey's name poping up again and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 points, plus player, young, cheap, and with potential. He's only played on defensive-minded teams, and I imagine a team of a more free-wheeling style may want to give him a shot. Why dump him for nothing when you can probably get something for him?

We've had headcases leave this team before... in order of value of assets received in return: Hainsey, S Kostitsyn, Ribiero, and Grabovski. I'd rather get a Grabovski return for Pouliot than a Hainsey, but I'd even settle on a Kostitsyn return because it's still better than nothing.

I think that Pouliot's production is better than the 1.5 million saved and a roster spot gained by just outright releasing him.

All we got for SK was two days exclusive rights to two players. Both of whom went to free agency. This is not much better than nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 points, plus player, young, cheap, and with potential. He's only played on defensive-minded teams, and I imagine a team of a more free-wheeling style may want to give him a shot. Why dump him for nothing when you can probably get something for him?

We've had headcases leave this team before... in order of value of assets received in return: Hainsey, S Kostitsyn, Ribiero, and Grabovski. I'd rather get a Grabovski return for Pouliot than a Hainsey, but I'd even settle on a Kostitsyn return because it's still better than nothing.

I think that Pouliot's production is better than the 1.5 million saved and a roster spot gained by just outright releasing him.

Trizzak makes a valid point about keeping cheap players with upside. The list of 'headcases' leaving the team, though, is a little disappointing. Three of those guys have gone on to have a quality NHL careers and the other one (Kostitsyn) shows every sign of emerging as a bona fide top-6 forward. (I predicted trouble in the case of Ribs and Grabs; I was surprised by Hainsey's turnaround and Kostitsyn's, although the jury's still out on that one). Of course, it's too simple to assume that those guys would have played for us - it depends on whose roster spot they'd have had to take. Nevertheless, the track record of dumping supposed headcases for marginal return, rather than patiently enduring their growth pains, is a bit discouraging. (Incidentally, you can add Lapierre and Latendresse to the list of young players dealt away while still in development, for what turned out to be poor returns. So: a #1A and 2nd-line C, a top-6 power forward, a #4-5 offensive defenceman, a 6'2 agitator who comes up big in the playoffs, and a talented top-6 winger. Yikes).

The difference between Pouliot and every other name on this list is that those guys tended to be punks: brash young bucks with an attitude of entitlement. This characteristic, of course, reflects inflated self-confidence, which, if properly channelled, can produce a winning mentality. I don't get the sense that Pouliot is this type of kid. Without pretending to have the faintest knowledge of the young man, he seems to me to be more of a Richer type...highly talented but prone to playing soft, then struggling as a result, then getting down on himself, then losing all self-confidence and basically being useless. (Yes, Richer was a better player; I'm just suggesting a similar cast of mind). I wonder if the Habs are enlightened enough, as an organization, to make counselling available to their players? Because I wouldn't fall down in shock to learn that Benny would benefit from something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All we got for SK was two days exclusive rights to two players. Both of whom went to free agency. This is not much better than nothing.

Indeed, it isn't. But they still made an attempt for players they felt they had a use for, and ultimately signed one. Management should be aiming for Grabovski's kind of return, or, at worst, Ribiero's... but anything but Hainsey's, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All we got for SK was two days exclusive rights to two players. Both of whom went to free agency. This is not much better than nothing.

Not quite. Boyd was one of the players and as we know he did play for Montreal/Hamilton this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. Boyd was one of the players and as we know he did play for Montreal/Hamilton this year.

A trade for a young player with a bright future for two UFA's two days before free agency is just dumb asset management. Especially when of those UFA's became one because his team didn't qualify him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A trade for a young player with a bright future for two UFA's two days before free agency is just dumb asset management. Especially when of those UFA's became one because his team didn't qualify him.

I was referring more to the point that the Habs didn't just get 2 days of negotiating rights for 2 players, 1 actually stayed. Boyd in Nashville was getting the same treatment that Pouliot did, not qualified but not necessarily released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trizzak makes a valid point about keeping cheap players with upside. The list of 'headcases' leaving the team, though, is a little disappointing. Three of those guys have gone on to have a quality NHL careers and the other one (Kostitsyn) shows every sign of emerging as a bona fide top-6 forward. (I predicted trouble in the case of Ribs and Grabs; I was surprised by Hainsey's turnaround and Kostitsyn's, although the jury's still out on that one). Of course, it's too simple to assume that those guys would have played for us - it depends on whose roster spot they'd have had to take. Nevertheless, the track record of dumping supposed headcases for marginal return, rather than patiently enduring their growth pains, is a bit discouraging. (Incidentally, you can add Lapierre and Latendresse to the list of young players dealt away while still in development, for what turned out to be poor returns. So: a #1A and 2nd-line C, a top-6 power forward, a #4-5 offensive defenceman, a 6'2 agitator who comes up big in the playoffs, and a talented top-6 winger. Yikes).

The difference between Pouliot and every other name on this list is that those guys tended to be punks: brash young bucks with an attitude of entitlement. This characteristic, of course, reflects inflated self-confidence, which, if properly channelled, can produce a winning mentality. I don't get the sense that Pouliot is this type of kid. Without pretending to have the faintest knowledge of the young man, he seems to me to be more of a Richer type...highly talented but prone to playing soft, then struggling as a result, then getting down on himself, then losing all self-confidence and basically being useless. (Yes, Richer was a better player; I'm just suggesting a similar cast of mind). I wonder if the Habs are enlightened enough, as an organization, to make counselling available to their players? Because I wouldn't fall down in shock to learn that Benny would benefit from something like that.

When did Hainsey become a headcase? They lost him on re-entry waivers when they had some injury problems after the lockout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did Hainsey become a headcase? They lost him on re-entry waivers when they had some injury problems after the lockout.

yep, but they should have known he was going to be picked up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did Hainsey become a headcase? They lost him on re-entry waivers when they had some injury problems after the lockout.

He followed a similar pattern of primadonna-ing his way out of town. While my interest in the Habs pre-2003-04 was peripheral at best, so admittedly my memory of Hainsey is limited to a single season, I do remember Hainsey as a half-asser with a sense of entitlement, and many Habs fans didn't really care that he was picked off waivers.

He didn't start the season with the Habs, proceeded to tear up the AHL, and we lost him on a call up. This wasn't purposefully dumping him on waivers because of his issues, but it was another situation of hesitance around a headcase, and it led to a lost asset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He followed a similar pattern of primadonna-ing his way out of town. While my interest in the Habs pre-2003-04 was peripheral at best, so admittedly my memory of Hainsey is limited to a single season, I do remember Hainsey as a half-asser with a sense of entitlement, and many Habs fans didn't really care that he was picked off waivers.

He didn't start the season with the Habs, proceeded to tear up the AHL, and we lost him on a call up. This wasn't purposefully dumping him on waivers because of his issues, but it was another situation of hesitance around a headcase, and it led to a lost asset.

It is interesting that players that leave Montreal are accompanyed with their "dark file" despite how they turn out when they get away. We sort of spit on them. Anyway I anticipate that there are deals in place which will be announced post Stanley Cup. Nobody talks about it, but I believe it is unwritten rule, that you don't announce a major signing that would take away from lustre of the PLAYOFFS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Habs chose Streit over Hainsey. Of course, they also chose having an expensive, veteran third pairing instead as well with guys like Bouillon, Quintal and Dandenault there.

Of course, Ron Hainsey has been a key blueliner for precisely zero playoff teams, so I don't think we gave up on a future core player by any stretch. We kept the right guy in Streit, we just screwed up with Streit when he became UFA. And when he was a player, too... it was always one mistake on D and he was back at forward for the next month.... despite being completely average at forward and providing a much needed puckmoving presence on D every time he was dressed there... boy, Carbo really screwed this team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Habs chose Streit over Hainsey. Of course, they also chose having an expensive, veteran third pairing instead as well with guys like Bouillon, Quintal and Dandenault there.

Of course, Ron Hainsey has been a key blueliner for precisely zero playoff teams, so I don't think we gave up on a future core player by any stretch. We kept the right guy in Streit, we just screwed up with Streit when he became UFA. And when he was a player, too... it was always one mistake on D and he was back at forward for the next month.... despite being completely average at forward and providing a much needed puckmoving presence on D every time he was dressed there... boy, Carbo really screwed this team.

It amazes me how Carbo has gotten a free pass over the disastrous abortion of Rebuild 1.0. Now I'm not saying he was a terrible coach - I really don't know - and I'm not saying he's the only one to blame; but when you have an entire generation of promising young players fail to pan out, the head coach has to bear some responsibility. Instead Carbo to this day has the saintly air of a Martyr Wronged.

Yeah, we messed the bed on Streit. In fairness, nearly all the fans thought the Islanders were loons to sign him to that deal, so we can hardly wag fingers in retrospect.

It's a fair point that we kept Streit over Hainsey. Any analysis of the 'ones that got away' does need to keep those sorts of variables in mind: e.g., Ribeiro's departure created room for Pleks to become a top-shelf offensive player instead of being cast as a third-liner; etc.. Nevertheless, that can easily slide into excuse-making (Pleks, for instance, could have been promoted to the second line with the departure of Koivu - we didn't have to ship Ribs out on his behalf). I do think the Habs have allowed a disproportionate number of talented young players to leave town because of what seems to be a punitive, inflexible approach toward 'bad attitude.' That may be an area where Gainey's old-school temperment worked against him. We'll see if Gauthier does better; the door-to-the-ass departures of Lapierre and Fatendresse don't bode too well in this regard, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I don't get one thing. Our team right now is a ton better than 3 or 4 years ago, but we let all the good ones get away? Who on this team would you sacrifice to have some of these headcases back? Hainsey lost through waivers is not a dumping. It was a risk bringing him up but at the time they had no choice, in hindsight maybe we should have made a trade or called someone else but how do you get him out of the minors without clearing waivers. If we had to leave him there for the entire year how much value was he to us. we had injury problems and he was sent down for a reason, he was not playing very well. As to fatendresse and riberio and lil titsy , they needed to get out of montreal where they were idolized and made to feel like they were indispensable to the team. The realization that "hey wait a minute if I don't get my act together I will be playing in europe next year" is a powerful incentive. This gm'ing by rear view mirror is kind of tiresome, and really not productive. We have a better team now and we need to look forward and make it better. If we can get something for pouliot then lets get it. We should probably qaulify him so he has more trade value, and then get a draft pick or something in return and move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I don't get one thing. Our team right now is a ton better than 3 or 4 years ago, but we let all the good ones get away? Who on this team would you sacrifice to have some of these headcases back? Hainsey lost through waivers is not a dumping. It was a risk bringing him up but at the time they had no choice, in hindsight maybe we should have made a trade or called someone else but how do you get him out of the minors without clearing waivers. If we had to leave him there for the entire year how much value was he to us. we had injury problems and he was sent down for a reason, he was not playing very well. As to fatendresse and riberio and lil titsy , they needed to get out of montreal where they were idolized and made to feel like they were indispensable to the team. The realization that "hey wait a minute if I don't get my act together I will be playing in europe next year" is a powerful incentive. This gm'ing by rear view mirror is kind of tiresome, and really not productive. We have a better team now and we need to look forward and make it better. If we can get something for pouliot then lets get it. We should probably qaulify him so he has more trade value, and then get a draft pick or something in return and move on.

Spilled milk! Fair enough. The issue is less that we suck (we don't - in fact we are underrated) than whether our asset management has been all it could be. But no, this wasn't meant as yet another 'sky is falling'-type post. I've been pretty clear that I like our team as a whole and believe us to be fairly close to contending. Didn't mean to come off as whiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spilled milk! Fair enough. The issue is less that we suck (we don't - in fact we are underrated) than whether our asset management has been all it could be. But no, this wasn't meant as yet another 'sky is falling'-type post. I've been pretty clear that I like our team as a whole and believe us to be fairly close to contending. Didn't mean to come off as whiny.

I, for the record, don't think you did. I don't think that there's any denying the fact that we've wasted some assets, but I'm sure that the same could be said about any team in the league (to both lesser and greater extents). It's the nature of the beast, and comes mostly as a result of not owning a functional crystal ball.

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...