The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Corrado came from the team making bad decision after bad decision: Vancouver. They also waived Linden Vey, for whom they traded a 2nd round pick (last year, I think?). Apparently they didn't even need to waive Corrado - there was some mechanism whereby they could have sat Hutton (who took his spot) for the season opener and avoided exposing Corrado. Yow. None of this blots the optimism here in Vancouver. People are ecstatic that three rookies made it to the big team and that's crowding out other questions, like asset management - at least for the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 Apparently they didn't even need to waive Corrado - there was some mechanism whereby they could have sat Hutton (who took his spot) for the season opener and avoided exposing Corrado. Yow. If they wanted, they could have LTIR'ed Higgins to open up a spot. They would have had to send down Hutton today, LTIR'ed Higgins effective first thing tomorrow, and then recalled Hutton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 If they wanted, they could have LTIR'ed Higgins to open up a spot. They would have had to send down Hutton today, LTIR'ed Higgins effective first thing tomorrow, and then recalled Hutton. Right, I heard Jason Batchford making this argument on the radio, but couldn't remember the specifics. You're a machine, Brian! Seems pretty dumb by Vancouver to me. They lose a quality prospect for nothing, as the Leafs snap him up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 Right, I heard Jason Batchford making this argument on the radio, but couldn't remember the specifics. You're a machine, Brian! Seems pretty dumb by Vancouver to me. They lose a quality prospect for nothing, as the Leafs snap him up. Is it worth the greater risk of bonus overage to keep an 8th defenceman up? (While Higgins would be on LTIR, the team would be accruing zero cap space to offset against potential bonuses.) That might have had to do with Vancouver's decision. Or, Benning's nuts. That one's a popular opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs30/31 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Serge stated it the day he was fired and still sticks by it today. He was "ordered" make the Chelly for Dennis deal. Takes all knocks for his other trades but not that one. He was the best gm the Canadiens have had since Sam Pollock. Without a doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Serge stated it the day he was fired and still sticks by it today. He was "ordered" make the Chelly for Dennis deal. Takes all knocks for his other trades but not that one. He was the best gm the Canadiens have had since Sam Pollock. Without a doubt. I agree with that, and that the Chelios thing was all Correy (that idiot). The one Savard really has to wear is the Leclair deal. To this day, when fans moan about the 'risk' of a young guy we trade away coming back to haunt us, or that Habs prospects 'always' flourish in other organizations, it's because that deal is in the collective subconscious. But I liked the Turgeon trade too, which was Serge trying yet again to reconstruct his first line on the fly after Muller suddenly got old. And despite a rep as a bad drafter, due to first-round busts, Serge drafted quite a few excellent players in his time. A very fine GM all told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Is it worth the greater risk of bonus overage to keep an 8th defenceman up? (While Higgins would be on LTIR, the team would be accruing zero cap space to offset against potential bonuses.) That might have had to do with Vancouver's decision. Or, Benning's nuts. That one's a popular opinion. Vancouver and Boston are both run by expired milk bags. It's fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Vancouver and Boston are both run by expired milk bags. It's fantastic. Ha ha! But what do you have against Vancouver - ? (Personally, I don't hate them like I did for a while there, but they do seem to have an exceptionally whiny fan base, so there's that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Lemieux for sylvie turgeon was pretty horrible as well. The Leclair trade was not just Leclair, but also Desjardins. In a 4 year span, Savard moved or released Robinson, Ludwig, Green, chelios and Desjardins. Robinson wanted to be captain and more money and ended up not only mentoring Blake and Zitnik he also was in the Norris conversation for two of his years in LA. I agree with that, and that the Chelios thing was all Correy (that idiot). The one Savard really has to wear is the Leclair deal. To this day, when fans moan about the 'risk' of a young guy we trade away coming back to haunt us, or that Habs prospects 'always' flourish in other organizations, it's because that deal is in the collective subconscious. But I liked the Turgeon trade too, which was Serge trying yet again to reconstruct his first line on the fly after Muller suddenly got old. And despite a rep as a bad drafter, due to first-round busts, Serge drafted quite a few excellent players in his time. A very fine GM all told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Ha ha! But what do you have against Vancouver - ? (Personally, I don't hate them like I did for a while there, but they do seem to have an exceptionally whiny fan base, so there's that). I used to really like them. Then I saw how much crap the Sedins got from their own fans. Don't care how they have treated a lot of players either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I guess it cost us nothing so who cares, but I would rather have a guy 6 ft 2 210 lbs on the 4th line, that a guy 5 ft 7 155 lbs. To me keep JDLR and send Byron down. Another 4th liner for deppt. Not a bad thing I guess. This is a waiver wire pickup so no great expectations---but you have a point--- I will be all over it when they start bringing back the small forwards from the ahl--reverting back to past when we were spinning wheels and wondered why we got no traction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I don't mind the Leclair / Desjardins deal that much. Recchi was awesome with the Habs. Could we have get more coming our way ? Maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I don't mind the Leclair / Desjardins deal that much. Recchi was awesome with the Habs. Could we have get more coming our way ? Maybe. It was kinda like the Phil Kessel trade to Toronto. Kessel was great in Toronto, but he wasn't Tyler Seguin + Dougie Hamilton great. Recchi was great but he wasn't Leclair + Desjardins great. Savard absolutely dismantled our defence and did very little to replace the bodies departing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 It's true that Savard ended up damaging the blueline quite seriously. But he left a team with a ton of talent at FW and a superstar goalie. My view is that more work needed to be done, but that a responsible GM could have modified the foundation left by Savard to build a contender - specifically by trading one or two of those FWs for defensive help. Houle's bumbling stupidity made the Savard legacy look much weaker than it actually was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 It's true that Savard ended up damaging the blueline quite seriously. But he left a team with a ton of talent at FW and a superstar goalie. My view is that more work needed to be done, but that a responsible GM could have modified the foundation left by Savard to build a contender - specifically by trading one or two of those FWs for defensive help. Houle's bumbling stupidity made the Savard legacy look much weaker than it actually was. For sure Houle made things worse, but Savard still deserves blame for overstacking the forwards when our D was a big reason we won the Cup in 93. We lost Chelios and Desjardins without getting a D back. To make matters worse, our amateur scouting sucked in the early 90s so the three defencemen Savard picked in the first round (Brent Bilodeau, Brad Brown and David Wilke) were busts. You should ask yourself, does Patrick Roy allow nine goals against Detroit with Eric Desjardins and Mathieu Schneider on the ice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 All I'm saying is that Savard's team was still a work in progress, yes, and he made mistakes, yes, but besides two Cups and a third Finals appearance, he left us with a lot of quality assets and a competitive team that good GM could well have built into a contender with a few shrewd moves. Was he a great GM? No. Was he a good-to-very-good GM? Yes. Agree with you on Vancouver and the Sedins, by the way. Canuckleheads have had one of the great hockey duos of all time and have, disproportionately, been ungrateful (although the worst of this 'Sedin sister' nonsense tapered off after about 2010). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Bergevin has a good track record of getting guys off the scrap heap, so I have a little optimism regarding Byron. Don't expect to see him before an injury, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 All I'm saying is that Savard's team was still a work in progress, yes, and he made mistakes, yes, but besides two Cups and a third Finals appearance, he left us with a lot of quality assets and a competitive team that good GM could well have built into a contender with a few shrewd moves. Was he a great GM? No. Was he a good-to-very-good GM? Yes. The problem lies in trying to boil down a decade of a GM's career in one easy review. Savard was all peaks and valleys. The 1984 draft was one of the best for a single team in NHL history (the Calgary Flames almost matched it by drafting Gary Roberts, Gary Suter and Brett Hull that same year but they traded Hull) but come into the 90s and if it wasn't for the 93 draft, his late 80s, early to mid 90s drafting was almost a complete failure. He had a lot of good to great trades and some franchise altering for the wrong reasons trades. Some guys got traded for bad reasons, others got kept for bad reasons, lots of guys got moved while their trade value was high but their on ice performance was not, and vice versa. I applaud him for 86, 89 and 93 but we just won a Cup in 93. We shouldn't have needed someone to make a few moves to build us into a contender. We should have still been contending. It was Savard that put the team in an un-even, forward stacked position where our franchise player was left to work harder than he had to and made us eventually fall apart. It was the right time for Savard to go, but his replacement was worse. Kind of what Vancouver just dealt with on Gillis/Benning, to bring this full circle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 We were too big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Yeah the guy won us a few cups, 2 as GM, should have been 3 in 11years, Glad we got rid of him. If you can't win 9 out of 14 like Sammy then you are crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs owned the 70's Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Well this thread has gone off the rails. So I wonder what this Byron guy is like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Well this thread has gone off the rails. So I wonder what this Byron guy is like? One of the fastest players in the NHL. Feisty and hits above his weight. Good penalty killer. Not a good shooter. Has been injury prone, which is a big reason Calgary let him go. That and they were hoping that putting Mason Raymond on waivers at the same time would get teams to look at Raymond instead of Byron. He's probably going to be like Tom Kostopoulos without the terrible fighting. A bottom six guy that can skate fast, get breakaways, rarely convert, play strong penalty kill, surprise you with a hit. At best he's a 15 point guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 One of the fastest players in the NHL. Feisty and hits above his weight. Good penalty killer. Not a good shooter. Has been injury prone, which is a big reason Calgary let him go. That and they were hoping that putting Mason Raymond on waivers at the same time would get teams to look at Raymond instead of Byron. I heard a scrum with Bob Hartley where he was surprised Byron was claimed. The plan apparently was for him to go back to the minors for a bit to continue to get back into playing shape as he returns from these various ailments. If that's actually the case here, we may not see Byron for a bit in a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 One of the fastest players in the NHL. Feisty and hits above his weight. Good penalty killer. Not a good shooter. Has been injury prone, which is a big reason Calgary let him go. That and they were hoping that putting Mason Raymond on waivers at the same time would get teams to look at Raymond instead of Byron. He's probably going to be like Tom Kostopoulos without the terrible fighting. A bottom six guy that can skate fast, get breakaways, rarely convert, play strong penalty kill, surprise you with a hit. At best he's a 15 point guy. We already have a bunch of guys who can get break ways and not score, (yeah I am looking at you pleks) so really he should fit right in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 I heard a scrum with Bob Hartley where he was surprised Byron was claimed. The plan apparently was for him to go back to the minors for a bit to continue to get back into playing shape as he returns from these various ailments. If that's actually the case here, we may not see Byron for a bit in a game. I gett AC was claiming he's injured, but if he was, why didn't Calgary send him down on conditioning, where he couldn't be picked up on waivers? Doesn't make sense. 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.