Peter Puck

In all these discussions about how badly we develop players, no one ever seems to mention Plekanec (or Markov). Similarly in the discussion of Lats everyone seems to feel we gave up on him. Maybe Gainey just saw a chance to get a better player more suited to our team and our needs

Could one of the mods make this thread a poll?

Cammmmmmy!!!

Woo-Hoo!!!!!!!

I think killing that penalty is huge. Now we can go to the room feeling rewarded for some hard work.

That's a bad penalty by O'Bryne. We really need to kill this and finish the period with the lead.

Wow. Hard to believe this is the same team that played last night. Let's see how long we can keep this up. A really important save by Price on the break away.

I've noticed this too. It's hard to judge if we are getting unfairly treated - I am never sure how much is my own pro Habs bias. My theory is that this is due to 2 factors: 1) the tendency to let "stars" get away with more and be very strict with rookies and other young players 2) the Bell Centre fans. Most teams get more PP's when they are the home team. We don't. I think this might be because every time a habs gets knocked down the fans immediately yell for a penalty. This might be making the refs uncomfortable about calling a penalty since they don't want to be seen as homers.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I really like this deal. Maybe its because I haven't seen Pouliot since he was drafted. But I think Latendresse's lack of speed and lack of quick hands means he will never be a top 6 forward. On the other hand I think (hope) Pouliot's skill set mean he could still become a number 1 centre. Even if this is a long shot, I'm glad Gainey took it. We have been searching for a big skilled centre forever.

Let me just point out that what someone hears a scout say out loud at a game is not necessarily what the scout really thinks.

Halak really should fire his agent for this. It is very unprofessional and reflects badly on Halak.

If this is true then I think it must be to create cap space to make a trade. Maybe SK is going somewhere.

I remember this past summer hearing someone in the Habs organization (Gainey? Savard maybe?) say they were trying to decide between Marc Staal and Price. They thought either or both could be franchise players and there was an argument about which of the two we should pick. They picked Price because a franchise goalie is worth more.

Here's a player we had who was just about as good in his prime as Recchi: John LeClair. Of course we missed out on most of his prime. This is why people are unhappy with the Recchi trade.

Jackp, maybe you can explain to me the following comments of yours: A. B. We should have kept Ryder at $4 million per year even though he had an abysmal season. Maybe it was his 3 goals and 5 assists in 21 playoff games? Price on the other hand had a pretty bad half season. But he's only 22 so its time to move on?

Well we didn't win but that game made me very happy. We can really see the changes Jacques Martin is introducing. One thing that really made an impression on me: I don't think we got called for icing even once in the game. Last year it seemed like we iced the puck at least 10 or 12 times every game.

Thanks xCKx. It's fixed now. P.P.

No I guess I wasn't clear on this point. The judge has not expressed any opinion on whether Balsillie would make a good partner. (Although some of his remarks suggest that he thinks Balsillie would be a fine owner). The league has said that they don't want him as a partner by means of a the 26-0 vote of the Board of Governors against Balsillie. (The Leafs and Sabres abstained, the Coyotes don't get a vote and I forgot which other team abstained). Legally the NHL is not required to justify why they don't want someone as a business partner. But, the league has volunteered their reason: they don't like the way he has disregarded the NHL's constitution in his 3 attempts to acquire a team. Also he has pissed off a few owners royally. Gillette used to be on his side but was one of the most active anti-Balsillie forces by the time of the vote. It is believed this is because Balsillie or one of his advisors leaked the fact that the Habs were for sale. Gillette wanted to keep that secret and had to come forward and deny it but we know how this turned out. Edit: I checked and it was the Penguins who also abstained.

Okay suppose I loaned you $1 million dollars and I took your hockey team as collateral for the loan. You declare bankruptcy and so your assets (the team) are sold. Then I am a creditor and am entitled to a share of the selling price (up untilo I get my $1 million back). If the buyer only gives you say $350 thousand dollars then I get to share that $350 thousand dollars with your other creditors. I don't get all my money back, but I also am not out my entire $1 million. No one is being forced to do anything. Balsillie's bid indicates that he will not honour the lease agreement. The NHL's bid indicates that they will. Beacuse of this difference Balsillie is planning to stiff an extra creditor. Since this creditor is owed the most money, this makes Balsillie's bid much worse than the NHL's. This is one of the 2 or 3 main obstacles to Balsillie winning. I am quite aware that not every contract is the same. It may be that your cell phone and/or ISP contract are not valid. This has no bearing on whether the Coyotes lease agreement is valid. The judge has indicated that he will honour the lease agreement but probably not to the full $550 million. I suspect he will award the City of Glendale around $200 million. In fact, since they built the arena for $180 million a few years ago and since if the Coyotes leave it will be a pretty useless building, this amount seems very fair. You are of course entitled to your opinion. Since Balsillie's team has not claimed he is being discriminated against and since the NHL has in fact justified their position I don't think anyone in court believes he has been singled out for being Canadian. After all an American owner (Gillette) just sold an NHL team to a group of Canadians. No, although two other groups indicated they planned to bid, they both dropped out before making a formal bid. Again you call the NHL's bid the lowest. Again, I'll point out that the creditors have all except Moyes decided it is the better of the two bids. This is (very roughly) the argument Balsillie has been making. The judge didn't seem to give it much credence. He indicated that he accepts the NHL's claim that they are refusing Balsillie's bid because they don't think he will make a good business partner and that they only made their own bid to protect their own interests. In fact, if Coke decided to sell MinuteMaid they could sell it to whomever they want. There would be no legal obligation to sell it to the highest bidder. They own it, they can sell it as they see fit. If you decide to sell your home, there is no law requiring you to sell it to whomever offers the most money. You can sell it to your mother for less if you want to. I do understand that keeping the team in Glendale is best for the City of Glendale. As for the other creditors getting screwed please answer the following question. Why if they are getting screwed under the NHL's bid, have they all, except Moyes, stated they prefer the NHL's bid to Balsillie's bid. Here's another definition: Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia Creditor party (e.g. person, organization, company, or government) that has a claim to the services of a second party. The first party, in general, has provided some property or service to the second party under the assumption (usually enforced by a contract) that the second party will return an equivalent property or service. The second party is frequently called a debtor. So you think it is bunk. That's fine, but the judge has stated that is how he will compute the relocation fee. The two sides are only really arguing about what the values of a team in Hamilton is worth. Balsillie's legal team has claimed that a team in Hamilton is only worth $7 million and therefore his relocation fee should only be $7 million. You think a team in Hamilton is worth more than $500 million!! Did you forget the leafs are still in Toronto? Also Balsillie's bid is not $240 million + $200 million. I don't know where you got this number. The bid says that the relocation fee will come out of the $240 million that he is bidding. The creditors get to split up the money that is left after he pays the relocation fee. He is offering $50 million to Glendale for the lease, (a strange offer if they are not even creditors) and the other creditors get to split the remaining ($190 million - relocation fee). Balsillie's expert witness (Zimbalist) has produced a report saying that a team in Hamilton is worth $7 million more than a team in Phoenix. [This is another one of the major obstacles facing Balsillie. I think this report is bunk.] If a team in Hamilton were worth more than $500 million as you claim, the relocation fee would exceed $470 million. If Balsillie were to offer to pay that relocation fee on top of purchasing the team, I am sure that the NHL would accept.

I'll predict a regular season record of: W - L - OTL 43-29-10 for 96 points.

4th annual HabsWorld points prediction contest. Hall of Fame: 2006-2007 Jean won with a prediction of 92 points when the Habs finished the year with 90 pts. If only we could have won that last game. 2007-2008 Adirondack Bud exactly predicted our final total of 104 pts. 2008-2009 Zowpeb won by predicting a strong start followed by a slower 2nd half ending with 99 points. The Habs finished the season in 8th place with 93 points. On September 22, 2008 Zowpeb predicted "I think we'll see a rough patch just past the mid-year point... " Wow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rather than just predicting our regular season final points total, predict what the Habs regular season record will be. The winner will be the poster whose point total is closest to the Habs at the end of the season. Ties will be broken using the NHL tiebreaking formula. Make you predictions by the end of the month.

The Coyotes signed an agreement with the arena owners (the City of Glendale) agreeing to pay what amounts to $550 million if they leave before the current season starts. This is a legal contract. Why do you think the Coyotes can just walk away from their commitment? You seem to think that since it only cost the city $180 million to build (a few years ago) they can never expect to get more than this in return. Okay so you feel that every contract ever signed is unenforceable. I don't agree with this position. Can you give some evidence to support your claim that they need to justify their decision? Three or four US court cases have established that professional sports leagues have a right to choose their partners (owners) and they have a very wide latitude in making their choices. The decisions in these cases state that the only legally unacceptable reason would be a reason based upon a discriminatory basis. In summary, the law established by those cases says that unless Balsiilie can show he is being illegally discriminated against, the league may disqualify him. There are two bids: the NHL's and Balsillie's. The league has stated that they only bid because they don't feel having only 1 bid from Balsillie would allow them to protect their interest. They have indicated that if they win they will immediately seek to resell the team (probably to Reinsdorf who withdrew his bid from the formal auction). The judge has indicated that he accepts this reason and does not feel that it is an anti-trust violation. How is it unfair for the league to offer a bid? Its an auction; anyone can bid. How can another bid harm anyone? If the NHL's bid truely is worse than the other bid (and both bids are valid) the judge can choose Balsillie's bid. Furthermore, if the NHL's bid is worse why is it that the creditors (the people who will receive the money from the winning bid) have all, except Moyes, stated that the NHL bid is better? You insist on calling the NHL's bid "smaller". In fact it is up to the judge to decide which bid is better (provided both bids are ruled valid). In fact, as the creditors have seen, the NHL's bid is superior to Balsillie's. Again, rather then being anti-trust, this is just the NHL offering a better alternative to the creditors than Balsillie is. The judge has ruled that the relocation fee should be the difference in value between the current Coyotes team in Hamilton and expansion franchise in Phoenix: relocation fee = (value of Coyotes in Hamilton) - (cost of an expansion franchise in Phoenix). This is because the NHL will be left with the right to sell an expansion franchise in Phoenix if the Coyotes move. I expect that you would agree that the prospect of selling someone an expansion franchise for Phoenix is unlikely to garner very much money. I would guess, less than $30 million, probably a lot less. On the other hand, especially given the sale of the Habs for $633 million, I think we can agree that the value of an established team in Hamilton could easily be $250 - $300 million. The NHL is asking for $279 million. This is probably more than they can get but $200 million doesn't seem to be outlandish.

I am not yet convinced that hockey cannot survive in Phoenix but you may be right and the team will move in a year or two. In spite of this possibility, the league has convinced the current creditors (except Moyes) that they are better off with the NHL prevailing instead of Balsillie. This just shows me how the NHL (and Bettman) have completely out played Balsillie and his legal team.

No, I am not "repeating their wild claim". I have read a lot of the legal documents. Their claim is not wild. The City of Glendale has a contract with the Coyotes. This contract was designed to make it very expensive for the Coyotes to leave. The Coyotes (actually two companies associated with the Coyotes) signed this contract and it includes their agreement to pay a large amount of money (as much as $550 million) if they want to break the lease and leave early. The fact that the arena cost $180 million is not really all that relevant to the claim that they are owed $550 million. I doubt that the judge will agree that they are owed that much but he might. Personally I think he will settle on a number more like $200 million. This still is much larger than the $90 million difference in the two bids. It certainly makes it clear that saying $240 million is bigger than $150 million is "it". No it is not just an "NHL rule". It is part of the contract that the current owner Moyes signed when he bought the team. Thus it is part of contract law and so not "trumped" by federal law. It is only illegal if they reject Balsillie for discmininatory reasons. They have clearly stated their reasons for rejecting him. In fact they can reject him for any reason that is not discriminatory, they don't need a good reason. They have stated they didn't like the way he behaved when he tried to buy the Predators. They also don't like the way he is behaving in the current drama. Both of these reasons are legitimate legal reasons for them to reject him. As I said above it is legal. The NHL is being very careful to avoid any behavior that would lead to an anti-trust case. In my opinion they have been successful and are unlikely to lose an anti-trust case based upon what has happened so far. You are 100% correct here. However, as I said above the NHL is not rejecting Balsillie for discriminatory reasons. Not even Balsillie's legal team has advanced the theory that he is being rejected for his nationality. Do you have any evidence (valid in court) for this claim? Yes this has happened before. But is is irrelevant. The judge will decide who has the best valid bid. The NHL has had 27 years to adapt to the Raiders case. They have adjusted to the law as it was stated in that case. The NFL, NBA, and MLB are all in court supporting the NHL's position. Also a very important fact here is that Davis moved a team he already owned. Balsillie's position is different in that he is not yet an approved owner.

If an owner wants to sell his franchise, he needs to find a buyer that is acceptable to the NHL. The NHL board of governors needs to approve all new owners. This was mentioned many times in connection with the Habs sale. Of course Bettman said many times that the BOG has no problem with the Molson brothers as new owners. With the Coyotes, the judge may well (I think probably will) rule that Balsillie's bid is not valid since he has been rejected as an owner by the NHL. If he decides that the NHL bid is also invalid (for example due to a conflict of interest) then there are no valid bids and so he will rule there is no sale.