titanfan

Should we care about Radulov?

57 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Meller93 said:

 

 

We we need to stop comparing Drouin and Radulov as if this was a trade.

 

What really happened is we traded our best, and only blue chip prospect for Drouin. I'm fine with the trade itself though, even like it.

 

However, we straight up lost Radulov for nothing. We lost a 1st line RW for nothing. That's what sucks.

 

I agree that there is some whining, but there is no way to avoid the fact that the talent in the organization has been watered down with the loss of Radulov.

 

Thats why losing Sergachev hurts more now. We lose him, and only move laterally.

 

I agree with the above posts about the lack of direction. We went all in with the Weber trade. So what we needed to do was pony up and pay Radulov while we're in our 2-3 year window. We did not do that, and now I don't know where the team is headed.

Actually haven't heard any talking heads who said Habs should of outbid and offered more than Dallas did for Radulov...actually just the opposite, in that Dallas overpaid seems to be all that I have heard.

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Radulov should never been allowed to become a UFA.  If it was clear that we couldn't afford him, his rights should have been traded. 

 

Around what time would you have been advocating for this?  In January when the Habs were a first place team?  At the trade deadline where the Habs were a first place team?  Or around the draft when negotiating rights are worth nothing?  The 'interview period' has all but killed the value of negotiating rights in recent years and it's hard to imagine that many would have been happy if the Habs dealt their second leading scorer midseason.  It's easy to say after the fact that they should have dealt him but when exactly was the right time to do so?

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

The cap savings is only useful when it is used for something useful. Once it is used, perspectives can change but it's even more irrational to say we could use it for some imaginary entity at this point in time. What happens when the cap space isn't used for a top line forward or top pairing defenseman? Will people only have been right then?

 

Had Radulov been signed by us, I would not have criticized Bergevin during Radulov's first slump so you have a bit of a generalization going. I don't care about Bergevin or what happens to him either way in all honesty. I care about losing Radulov.

 

Teams lose players to free agency all the time.

This was a unique situation however in that we were re-introducing Radulov to the NHL after a long absence and I don't think he did anything to warrant us not wanting to resign him, whether it was during the season or ASAP in free agency.

 

In addition, teams often lose their core players in situations like this after having actually contended. Chicago's had these problems, Pittsburgh and Nashville had to see some players go and even Washington and San Jose are getting partially dismantled. We're losing one of our core players due to cap implications without having had the offense in the first place and I'm one who's always optimistic about he Habs' chances.

 

There are all these comparisons being made between Drouin and Radulov but Drouin was acquired to help out an already struggling core on offense, not to maintain it. Bergevin was quoted saying that he fully expected that he had Radulov on lock with the offer that was made. People are confused about the direction Bergevin is headed because it's not going the direction he himself planned. Defend that if you like but I'm sure he wouldn't even defend it himself. I'm sure he's not ecstatic himself not to Radulov back. 

 

As as was stated, it's not like our team chose to trade away Radulov for a return. We lost him for nothing in essence and it wasn't by choice.

Totally agree about the usage of cap space comment.  If you look at how MB used the cap space that become available, he immediately flushed it away on a low cost, no return bum like Hemsky.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

Around what time would you have been advocating for this?  In January when the Habs were a first place team?  At the trade deadline where the Habs were a first place team?  Or around the draft when negotiating rights are worth nothing?  The 'interview period' has all but killed the value of negotiating rights in recent years and it's hard to imagine that many would have been happy if the Habs dealt their second leading scorer midseason.  It's easy to say after the fact that they should have dealt him but when exactly was the right time to do so?

They should have been trying to sign him during the season and should have been priority #1 once the season ended.

 

ibsaid trade his rights if he can't be signed - that should be self evident that his rights would get traded after the season ended, but before the negotiation period began.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

They should have been trying to sign him during the season and should have been priority #1 once the season ended.

 

ibsaid trade his rights if he can't be signed - that should be self evident that his rights would get traded after the season ended, but before the negotiation period began.

 

They did have talks during the season and the asking price was nuts by all accounts.  It's hard to have real negotiations when you're several years and millions apart.

 

Let's suppose in April the determination was made that they wouldn't be able to keep him.  What do you think would his rights have been worth?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

They should have been trying to sign him during the season and should have been priority #1 once the season ended.

 

ibsaid trade his rights if he can't be signed - that should be self evident that his rights would get traded after the season ended, but before the negotiation period began.

as markown said if  you heard what he wanted in January you would fall off your chair. Were we going to trade hm then? Can't see it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may have lost Rad for nothing, but we also got him for nothing. 

 

At the end of the day, Rad was a carpetbagger who visited us for a year. He gained re-entry into the NHL and the contract he wanted - we got his services for a year. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, revvvrob said:

We may have lost Rad for nothing, but we also got him for nothing. 

 

At the end of the day, Rad was a carpetbagger who visited us for a year. He gained re-entry into the NHL and the contract he wanted - we got his services for a year. 

 

This comment is even funnier because I spent the long weekend in Savannah.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word right now is that the offer Radulov took from Dallas was on the table before free agency and because Radulov wanted to test the market, Bergevin pulled it and replaced it with the four year. When all Radulov could get was the offer Dallas made, he accepted it. Montreal then tried to offer their original offer, but he already accepted the Dallas deal. Had Bergevin left the five years and never tried to hard ball him, Radulov would have re-signed in Montreal. 

 

Why do I still love this team. Ugh. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, habs rule said:

 Get Galchenyuk signed, 5 years at 5.5. Let him play center. 

7yr deal, lock him up till he is 30! Centre/Wing I don't really care where he lines up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

Word right now is that the offer Radulov took from Dallas was on the table before free agency and because Radulov wanted to test the market, Bergevin pulled it and replaced it with the four year. When all Radulov could get was the offer Dallas made, he accepted it. Montreal then tried to offer their original offer, but he already accepted the Dallas deal. Had Bergevin left the five years and never tried to hard ball him, Radulov would have re-signed in Montreal. 

 

Why do I still love this team. Ugh. 

that is a good story, any source?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, habs rule said:

that is a good story, any source?

 

Radulov's Siberian grandmother I think it was.:spamafote:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DON said:

Radulov's Siberian grandmother I think it was.:spamafote:

ahhh good a reliable source. Drinks a bottle of vodka a day.:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if MB had signed Vanek to a 1-2yr deal at $3-4Mper instead of Hemsky?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nihilz said:

What if MB had signed Vanek to a 1-2yr deal at $3-4Mper instead of Hemsky?

 

 

 

I'd rather Hemsky at $1 mill and still have money left over for Markov.  If Markov leaves you can use that $6 million to take on salary in a trade for a LHD or C

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the Markov solution? He wan't 2 yrs at $6M. You had allotted $6M for Radulov and now have Hemsky with $5M in unexpected cap space. Do you send Markov a 1yr deal a $7M? Is Markov more important than excess cap space and principles?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, habs rule said:

that is a good story, any source?

 

Edwin Encanarcion

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, titanfan said:

Edwin Encanarcion

Ahh another good source Rum drinker I believe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears it's difficult to separate the exuberance Radulov showed on the ice from his desire to play for the Canadiens. I really liked him as a player last year, and he was entertaining, to say the least. A player has the right as a free agent to choose where he wants to go. He chose Dallas. By all accounts, Bergevin made a reasonable offer to Radulov. It's important to remember that point. He wasn't lowballed, and the term wasn't unreasonable either. I don't care about the rumors as to how it supposedly played out. A reasonable offer from Montreal was not accepted. It's time to move on.

 

Given the Habs lack of scoring, Bergevin now needs to replace that offense some how with the available cap space. If I'm forced to judge the roster now, meh, it's hopefully a work in progress.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, titanfan said:

Edwin Encanarcion

 

Source was Jonathan Bernier: http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/07/03/alexander-radulov-rejoint-les-stars

 

Rough translation:


 

Quote

 

By digging the file, it was possible to learn that Bergevin had indeed submitted an offer identical to that of the Stars, but that it would fade once July 1st arrived.
By refusing the Tricolor's proposal before the opening of the market, Radulov and his agent believed that they could persuade another company to make a more attractive offer, both at the monetary level and over the duration of the cartel.


The Canadian's offer having fallen and withdrawn from the table, the Russian clan attacked the market. This miraculous proposition never materialized. However, Nill and the Stars presented themselves with a proposal identical to that of the Canadien.


"I talked to Jamie Benn. He called me a few days ago. We spoke about ten minutes. He bragged about the team and the city. I liked what he told me. In Dallas, I will have the chance to play with good players like Benn, (Tyler) Seguin and (Jason) Spezza. I also like the acquisitions they made like Ben Bishop and Marc Méthot, "said Radulov, who at the time of this interview believed the bridges cut with Bergevin

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Source was Jonathan Bernier: http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/07/03/alexander-radulov-rejoint-les-stars

 

Rough translation:


 

 

Radulov was out for money since day one. I don't think Montreal meant anything to him. He wanted a big pay day and I think that pissed Beregvin off. 

 

Radulov didn't sign the offer on july.1, so Bergevin being Bergevin let his ego join the party and pulled his best offer off the table 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Stogey24 said:

Radulov was out for money since day one. I don't think Montreal meant anything to him. He wanted a big pay day and I think that pissed Beregvin off. 

 

Radulov didn't sign the offer on july.1, so Bergevin being Bergevin let his ego join the party and pulled his best offer off the table 

 

For all the talk about egos (Subban, Radulov etc.) I've actually always felt that the biggest egos might be Bergevin and the now gone Therrien. The "CHaracter" mantra almost goes so far it has this holier than thou feel. As if they believe certain players aren't good enough people to play for them.

 

Thats just a vibe, not saying it's definitely true.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

For all the talk about egos (Subban, Radulov etc.) I've actually always felt that the biggest egos might be Bergevin and the now gone Therrien. The "CHaracter" mantra almost goes so far it has this holier than thou feel. As if they believe certain players aren't good enough people to play for them.

 

Thats just a vibe, not saying it's definitely true.

I have no idea either. It just seems like its all about protecting the brand these days. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

For all the talk about egos (Subban, Radulov etc.) I've actually always felt that the biggest egos might be Bergevin and the now gone Therrien. The "CHaracter" mantra almost goes so far it has this holier than thou feel. As if they believe certain players aren't good enough people to play for them.

 

Thats just a vibe, not saying it's definitely true.

100% agree.  That's why the failures are on the players and not his managemt team - many of whom should have been fired long ago.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Meller93 said:

For all the talk about egos (Subban, Radulov etc.) I've actually always felt that the biggest egos might be Bergevin and the now gone Therrien. The "CHaracter" mantra almost goes so far it has this holier than thou feel. As if they believe certain players aren't good enough people to play for them.

 

Thats just a vibe, not saying it's definitely true.

Throwback to the old days when it was an honour to be invited to a camp.  Should let him know have more than 6 teams. They are not so concerned about CHaracter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now