Jump to content

Palushaj waived, claimed by Colorado


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

Colin-LOL :nuts: Radley's show on CHML Hamilton concentrates on local sports and can be listened to via the internet (9-10pm each weekday). Unfortunately, the local tv station for some reason just does a bad job of trying to cover major league stuff covered much bettter by the Sports networks :Bulldogs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bournival is 20 years old, and a pretty good prospect.... why are we shitting on him?

Yeah...weird.

We really have NOTHING to complain about right now, as Habs fans. But don't worry, we're find something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's why...

Who wouldn't want this on our team? O'Byrne is no Derian Hatcher, but I really hope our days of trading depth NHLers for B level prospects is behind us.

I remember wincing nervously every time O'Byrne touched the puck.

Anyway, Palushaj was never going to be an impact player in the NHL. Guys like him are a dime a dozen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just listening to Dogs broadcaster Derek Wills on Scott Radley's nightly show on CHML. He made it sound like if Colorado try and send Aaron to the AHL within 30 days, the Habs would get him back automatically.

If Colorado tries to send Palushaj down at any point (this week, next month, next year), he will need to be re-waived. The only way Hamilton can get him back is if the following happens:

- Colorado re-waives him within 30 days of yesterday without playing him in 10 games and,

- The Habs re-claim him and no other team claims him.

At that time, Montreal would be eligible to send him down if they so desire. It's certainly not an automatic all that the Habs/Bulldogs would get him back if the Avalanche re-waive him, they may value the open contract spot more (to try to sign a college UFA next month).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The angst over losing O'Byrne ... a third pairing defenceman at best.... is still laughable to me. He had no skill to stay in that lineup when he was traded (was the 8th D) and would be unlikely to crack to the top 6 now.

To get a good prospect for him was a good move.

Like I said above about Dagostini.... trading an NHLer who can't crack your roster for a prospect is always a good move, even if that prospect craps out (and there is no evidence that Bournival has crapped out). Its a gamble, and not all prospects make it... but if you get a productive player for one who couldn't make the roster... good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between throwing players away (Ribeiro, Beauchemin, Hainsey, Sergei Kostitsyn, Grabovksi) and trading an OK low-ceiling guy like O'Byrne for a solid prospect. The discourse around O'Byrne seems to overlook this difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between throwing players away (Ribeiro, Beauchemin, Hainsey, Sergei Kostitsyn, Grabovksi) and trading an OK low-ceiling guy like O'Byrne for a solid prospect. The discourse around O'Byrne seems to overlook this difference.

I agree, there was a lot bigger fish that got away for nothing or little. koivu. Ouch! In the specific cases, of O'byrne and D'Agostini the club was not in a good sellers position, so one should not expect a better return. Having said that, O'Byrne and D'Agostini have both played signifacant time in the NHL, albeit in a bottom role. Their trade partners as of yet have little or no time. I therefore conclude that other than buying time, it is premature to conclude that we got better players back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me first state that I have never been a fan of Ryan O'Byrne. However, I never tire of explaining why he wasn't an asset to Montreal.

Ryan O'Byrne is really tall. You know who else is really tall? Jamie Oleksiak. I bet you haven't heard of him. He's a defenceman for Dallas at 6'7". But you have heard of Ryan O'Byrne and that's because he played for Montreal, even though they are pretty much the same hockey player. But O'Byrne seems to be this name many Canadiens fans cry over losing? Why?

Because he's tall. That's it.

Was O'Byrne skilled? Not really. He made errors in his own zone all of the time. More errors in fact than Mike Komisarek, yet very few bring up bringing him back into the fold (because he was overrated and got paid for being overrated. O'Byrne doesn't even have that notoriety). No, O'Byrne is known for scoring a goal on Montreal when playing the Islanders. A feat he repeated in Colorado against the Florida Panthers.

"But O'Byrne once rocked Chara and he fights!"

O'Byrne is also the fifth defenceman on the Avalanche, who balance their defenceman's minutes and are known to having one of the worst D units in the league. Despite not seeing as much ice time as Erik Johnson he has the same amount of giveaways with eight. Last season, Jan Hejda and Ryan O'Byrne were scored on the most when playing PK for the Avalanche.

In other words, O'Byrne plays what appears to be good minutes but he plays it against the softest competition. On any other team, the coach would use O'Byrne more sparingly. This is the cause for most "big dumb strong" players. Nobody was afraid of O'Byrne. He isn't much of a fighter, he shakes the opponent more than anything and he's too slow to swing. He had several inches on Brad Stuart and in a retaliation/instigator after a clean hit on Landeskog, O'Byrne had to tussle him down as his retribution. Did it send a message? Not really. O'Byrne sat in the box the same way Ryan White did, watching San Jose score two goals on his penalty. No lesson taught.

But Ryan O'Byrne is big. And Canadiens fans have an inferiority complex. So how dare they trade their biggest player for Bournival.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there was a lot bigger fish that got away for nothing or little. koivu. Ouch! In the specific cases, of O'byrne and D'Agostini the club was not in a good sellers position, so one should not expect a better return. Having said that, O'Byrne and D'Agostini have both played signifacant time in the NHL, albeit in a bottom role. Their trade partners as of yet have little or no time. I therefore conclude that other than buying time, it is premature to conclude that we got better players back.

Koivu left an UFA. We didn't lose him for nothing unless you wanted to trade him deadline that year. Seems I was one of a few here saying to trade Cpt Smurf. Great inspiration 50pt man. Oh how could we lose him? Bah! What, we should have offered him how much to stay and be a poor ass 50pt first line center? C'mon. Gomez was a leader too. They both wore out their use here. Much better places for money than Saku, who would be pretty far down our center depth list now. Class act, nice guy, decent talent but his 2 70pts seasons were not his normal output.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Koivu left an UFA. We didn't lose him for nothing unless you wanted to trade him deadline that year. Seems I was one of a few here saying to trade Cpt Smurf. Great inspiration 50pt man. Oh how could we lose him? Bah! What, we should have offered him how much to stay and be a poor ass 50pt first line center? C'mon. Gomez was a leader too. They both wore out their use here. Much better places for money than Saku, who would be pretty far down our center depth list now. Class act, nice guy, decent talent but his 2 70pts seasons were not his normal output.

Well, I wanted to trade him for Marleau after the latter's 49-point season. I figured it was a classic fit for both teams (gutsy playoff performer and leader for them, high-ceiling centreman for us). Oh well.

But look, Koivu would have been far superior to the disappearing act Gomez put on after his first season with us - and much cheaper. Now (as Habs29 will rush in to remind me) I was enthusiastic when we acquired Gomer, as he was always one of the most stylish and exciting players around; but the Gomez we saw after 2010 bore no relationship to the guy we acquired, or the guy who had success in the NHL for years prior. That guy was utter garbage and super-expensive to boot. We would have been FAR wiser in retrospect to re-sign Saks on (say) a 2-year deal. I agree that he'd be redundant on our squad as presently constituted. But that doesn't mean we couldn't have used him like crazy over the past two seasons.

Incidentally, I once did a very close analysis of Koivu's point production. I found that he produced at the level of a point-per-game centreman for about 2/3-3/4 of every season. For the other third or quarter, he would go through extended, disastrous droughts of minimal production. So although he was indeed a 50-ish point guy, for the bulk of any given season he was much more than that. And check out his playoff numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, there was a lot bigger fish that got away for nothing or little. koivu. Ouch! In the specific cases, of O'byrne and D'Agostini the club was not in a good sellers position, so one should not expect a better return. Having said that, O'Byrne and D'Agostini have both played signifacant time in the NHL, albeit in a bottom role. Their trade partners as of yet have little or no time. I therefore conclude that other than buying time, it is premature to conclude that we got better players back.

Premature, absolutely. But you also have to consider whether we have superior players in comparable roles on our teams, in which case they've been fully replaced. More to the point, getting all agitated about these ultimately minor moves is every bit as premature as declaring the deals terrific. It's just not worthy getting worked up about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premature, absolutely. But you also have to consider whether we have superior players in comparable roles on our teams, in which case they've been fully replaced. More to the point, getting all agitated about these ultimately minor moves is every bit as premature as declaring the deals terrific. It's just not worthy getting worked up about.

I am not the one getting agitated. I was not the one that brought it up. I agreed there were far more important deals that should draw more ire. What I didn't agree with is the assertion that they got better value for the two foremention. That in my mind has yet to be determined. I am good with that they got any value. i am not good with they got more value , at least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But look, Koivu would have been far superior to the disappearing act Gomez put on after his first season with us - and much cheaper. Now (as Habs29 will rush in to remind me) I was enthusiastic when we acquired Gomer, as he was always one of the most stylish and exciting players around; but the Gomez we saw after 2010 bore no relationship to the guy we acquired, or the guy who had success in the NHL for years prior. That guy was utter garbage and super-expensive to boot. We would have been FAR wiser in retrospect to re-sign Saks on (say) a 2-year deal. I agree that he'd be redundant on our squad as presently constituted. But that doesn't mean we couldn't have used him like crazy over the past two seasons.

We're kind of straying off topic here but I wanted to touch on this point. I completely agree with most of what you said which is why I only selected this segment to discuss but I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you are portraying it. In the past 2 years I completely agree that having Koivu on the squad would have been better than Gomez, if not only for the inspirational leadership he provides, especially to the Canadiens.

With that being said, I have always been a firm believer that the acquisition of Gomez led to us signing a handful of other solid veterans and playoff performers, one of which became the captain of the team. After we traded for Gomez, we signed players like Gill, Moen, Gionta and Cammalleri. Considering how big of a fan I am, this is an unfortunate reality but the playoff run to the conference finals after acquiring these players is probably the best playoff memory that I have had... far better than any season in the Koivu era.

It's possible that I am in the minority here but I actually don't view Gainey's rebuild as a failure at all. In addition, I'm not able to look at Gomez's acquisition without looking at the bigger picture and the other players who signed as a consequence. My point is that comparing Koivu against Gomez leads to a fairly straightforward answer but it's not realistic to look at things that way. Gainey went for a culture change and I'm not convinced that it would have been as successful without parting ways with Saku. It's sad that things turned out the way they did with Cammy and Gomez but one cannot always control unforeseeable events.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you referring to the culture change the led to us bottoming out last year and us losing McDonough. I'd take McDonough over every player we signed in the Gainey rebuild. Also keep in mind that Gionta was plan C. The original plan was to sign Gomez, cammy and keep Kovolev. Thankfully kovy got greedy.

Also keep in mind that Gomez was gainey's plan B. plan A was reportedly pleks, subban Higgins and possibly Price for Vinny. Thankfully TB's idiotic owners pulled the plug on that.

The only benefit of the Gainey failure was we became so lousy we were able to draft Galchenyuk.

We're kind of straying off topic here but I wanted to touch on this point. I completely agree with most of what you said which is why I only selected this segment to discuss but I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you are portraying it. In the past 2 years I completely agree that having Koivu on the squad would have been better than Gomez, if not only for the inspirational leadership he provides, especially to the Canadiens.

With that being said, I have always been a firm believer that the acquisition of Gomez led to us signing a handful of other solid veterans and playoff performers, one of which became the captain of the team. After we traded for Gomez, we signed players like Gill, Moen, Gionta and Cammalleri. Considering how big of a fan I am, this is an unfortunate reality but the playoff run to the conference finals after acquiring these players is probably the best playoff memory that I have had... far better than any season in the Koivu era.

It's possible that I am in the minority here but I actually don't view Gainey's rebuild as a failure at all. In addition, I'm not able to look at Gomez's acquisition without looking at the bigger picture and the other players who signed as a consequence. My point is that comparing Koivu against Gomez leads to a fairly straightforward answer but it's not realistic to look at things that way. Gainey went for a culture change and I'm not convinced that it would have been as successful without parting ways with Saku. It's sad that things turned out the way they did with Cammy and Gomez but one cannot always control unforeseeable events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a new thread would be in order? On the Gainey rebuild-- I liken it to a baseball situation which is getting thrown out at third base for the last out of the inning. It is great if you get there, but it is all on you if you don't. Gainey got thrown out at third!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me first state that I have never been a fan of Ryan O'Byrne. However, I never tire of explaining why he wasn't an asset to Montreal.

Ryan O'Byrne is really tall. You know who else is really tall? Jamie Oleksiak. I bet you haven't heard of him. He's a defenceman for Dallas at 6'7". But you have heard of Ryan O'Byrne and that's because he played for Montreal, even though they are pretty much the same hockey player. But O'Byrne seems to be this name many Canadiens fans cry over losing? Why?

Because he's tall. That's it.

Was O'Byrne skilled? Not really. He made errors in his own zone all of the time. More errors in fact than Mike Komisarek, yet very few bring up bringing him back into the fold (because he was overrated and got paid for being overrated. O'Byrne doesn't even have that notoriety). No, O'Byrne is known for scoring a goal on Montreal when playing the Islanders. A feat he repeated in Colorado against the Florida Panthers.

"But O'Byrne once rocked Chara and he fights!"

O'Byrne is also the fifth defenceman on the Avalanche, who balance their defenceman's minutes and are known to having one of the worst D units in the league. Despite not seeing as much ice time as Erik Johnson he has the same amount of giveaways with eight. Last season, Jan Hejda and Ryan O'Byrne were scored on the most when playing PK for the Avalanche.

In other words, O'Byrne plays what appears to be good minutes but he plays it against the softest competition. On any other team, the coach would use O'Byrne more sparingly. This is the cause for most "big dumb strong" players. Nobody was afraid of O'Byrne. He isn't much of a fighter, he shakes the opponent more than anything and he's too slow to swing. He had several inches on Brad Stuart and in a retaliation/instigator after a clean hit on Landeskog, O'Byrne had to tussle him down as his retribution. Did it send a message? Not really. O'Byrne sat in the box the same way Ryan White did, watching San Jose score two goals on his penalty. No lesson taught.

But Ryan O'Byrne is big. And Canadiens fans have an inferiority complex. So how dare they trade their biggest player for Bournival.

He is a plus minus of 0 on a shitty team and we all know it take longer for d men to get better. he is playing almost 20 mins a night how do they hide him then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gainey rebuild was a failure in the sense of not winning a Cup, and it also brought in train many specific failures (i.e., bad moves).

In Gainey's defence, however, the following can be said of Rebuild 1.0:

-he built us from something close to a basket case into a dependable playoff team;

-he delivered a #3 overall finish (2008) and a year in which we were widely considered contenders (2009);

-he made us a desirable destination for free agents.

And the following can be said of Rebuild 2.0:

-he built a team that went to the Semi-Finals in 2010 and took the Bruins to the very edge in 2011.

-he built a team that almost certainly would have done vastly better had it not been devastated with key injuries in 2012.

And on balance, the Gainey years certainly delivered a lot of excitement, passion, and notable events.

If you just look at overall results, not might-have-beens (Lecavalier) and individual errors (Gomez, Ribeiro), I don't think you can decree him bad or even mediocre. 2012 was a total outlier, a freak event. On balance, he was a 'pretty good' GM who nevertheless made significant mistakes (specific deals, terrible player development) and whose teams also had a considerable portion of rotten luck (horrible injuries to Markov year after year, Lang going down, Patches being out of commission against the Bruins, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gainey rebuild was a failure in the sense of not winning a Cup, and it also brought in train many specific failures (i.e., bad moves).

In Gainey's defence, however, the following can be said of Rebuild 1.0:

-he built us from something close to a basket case into a dependable playoff team;

-he delivered a #3 overall finish (2008) and a year in which we were widely considered contenders (2009);

-he made us a desirable destination for free agents.

And the following can be said of Rebuild 2.0:

-he built a team that went to the Semi-Finals in 2010 and took the Bruins to the very edge in 2011.

-he built a team that almost certainly would have done vastly better had it not been devastated with key injuries in 2012.

And on balance, the Gainey years certainly delivered a lot of excitement, passion, and notable events.

If you just look at overall results, not might-have-beens (Lecavalier) and individual errors (Gomez, Ribeiro), I don't think you can decree him bad or even mediocre. 2012 was a total outlier, a freak event. On balance, he was a 'pretty good' GM who nevertheless made significant mistakes (specific deals, terrible player development) and whose teams also had a considerable portion of rotten luck (horrible injuries to Markov year after year, Lang going down, Patches being out of commission against the Bruins, etc.).

I had VERY high hopes from Gainey. IMO, he turned out to be a below average GM - in evaluating a GM, you have to look not only at their accomplishments while on the job, but also the long-term ramifications of their actions. After 2008, it was a downhill slope, where we got poor to no return for key assets and there were just too many players brought in that were mistakes. He was better then Houle, but Houle and Milbury have few peers to compare to.

Link to comment
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...