Peter Puck

That's not quite it. If Balsillie takes the team to Hamilton he adds another creditor, the City of Glendale which owns the arena. They are claiming they will be owed $550 million if Balsillie moves the team. That extra $550 million sure makes the extra $90 million you mention look pretty small. Since you seem to think that the creditors' opinions are what matters most, you may be interested to know that all the creditors, with the single exception of Moyes, stated in court Friday that they want the judge to rule against Balsillie and in favour of the NHL.

The union doesn't have to do anything about players leaving. Every single one of those guys who left has been replaced by another player who is in the union. The NHL is not in any immediate danger of crumbling.

Balsillie showed he has no respect for the league or its rules. He just wants a team. He is more than willing to use the courts to supercede league rules. This is an attitude that turns off other owners. If he gets a team he may decide that the cap is limiting his ability to win and decide to ignore the cap and then sue if the league tries to enforce the penalties. Or he may decide that he wants to sign another team's RFA without paying any compensation. Or maybe he will sign an underage star before he is drafted. All these rules have legal weaknesses that put them in jeopardy in a court fight. Of course, he may do no such thing but his track record makes the other owners nervous.

Okay, suppose Gainey had locked up his 10 free agents. Lets say Komisarek 5 years at $5M/yr Tanguay 3 years at $4.5M/yr Koivu 2 years at $4M/yr Kovalev 3 years at $4.5M/yr Schneider 2 years at $2.5M/yr. These numbers are of course guesses but I think they are pretty reasonable. Anyhow the exact values are not vital to my point. In fact I probably should add $1M/year to the first 4 and add Robert Lang for 2 years at $4.5M per year since you wanted Gainey to sign them during the season (say in November) when we had just completed a very good season and were looking like a top contender again. He shouldn't risk having them poached by other teams as you say. Now we want to revamp during this off season. You say Gainey did great by resigning them and he should now move them for some assets. Let's see how that works. Well we get to keep Komisarek, I think he'll probably rebound and be a good player. But he had a very bad year for us last year. What about the others? Given the interest in Koivu and Kovalev, I doubt we could move either of them. Maybe. Probably we have to sweeten the deal with some pick/prospect to get someone to take each of them off our hands. Its clear now that no team is going to pay for Tanguay nor Schneider. That's okay if we package Tanguay with Weber some team may take those two for nothing. Maybe we could trade Schneider and a 2nd round pick for a 3rd round pick to some team like the Islanders. So we trade a few of our picks and/or prospects, buy a few guys out and we can be rid of the guys that Gainey let walk. Getting rid of Lang, Kostopolous, Dandenault, etc. is going to cost of even more. Or we can keep our picks and prospects, keep our 10 (or 5) free agents and say goodbye to all the new UFA's Gainey signed. Maybe we could even have afforded and attracted Hall Gill or Mara without letting our core walk - probably not if Gainey resigned everyone early in the season.

I agree completely. I was thinking of starting a "Bob Gainey is a genius" thread but this thread is better.

I have seen no evidence for either of these claims. Can you provide any? Here are 2 links to articles. In the first the Globe and Mail quotes Beauchemin as saying: "I was waiting for Anaheim. I had four great years there," said Beauchemin, who didn't receive an offer until last Saturday. "If they weren't going to sign me, I wanted to come back East to a hockey market and the Leafs showed the most interest." In the second the National Post quotes Beachemin as saying that the Habs expressed some interest: The Montreal Canadiens also showed some interest in the Sorel, Que., native, but Beauchemin admitted he was not their "No. 1 guy." Other clubs made overtures, "but the Leafs showed the most interest." How long should the Habs have waited for a guy who was waiting to sign in Anaheim?

Yeah Toronto really has signed a long list of talented free agents lately. Plus, who have they signed and traded right away? You feel they are only 2 or 3 decent forwards away from being better than us. They signed a couple of players that make their defence look pretty good. But doing that meant that they have no money left for forwards. So in reality they are a long way from reaching our level. More importantly, how can you think there would be teams willing to trade for Koivu, Tanguay or Kovalev. All 3 could be had for free on July 1 and all 3 had trouble finding new teams. Teams aren't keen to sign them but you think they would be willing to give us assets to get them??? Gomez has shown that he is a number one centre. He had a rough time in NY but he was good in NJ. I agree that it would have been better to get a better centre but tell me how Gainey was supposed to get one? You already say he gave up too much for Gomez. Of course you assujme that the Gionta-Gomez-Elias line was all due to Elias. If we'd gotten Elias you'd be blaming Gainey for getting a guy whose numbers were all the product of his linemates. You say that Calgary would have signed Cammallari if he'd had a good playoff. Where's the evidence for that? Can you provide a link? In fact, Calgary has severe cap problems and can't afford Cammalleri. With Gomez you complain that he was bad in NY and ignore his time in NJ. With Gill you complain that he was bad in Toronto and ignore his time in Pittsburg. As bad as he was in Toronto, he had a great playoff for the Penguins and was on the ice in the dying seconds of game 7 protecting a 1 goal lead. You complain that we go after other teams "rejects". Any player we get, except in the draft, is another teams reject. This is just a label used to demean players we sign or trade for. Finally, I'll point out that (according to Beachemin) 1) Bob did go after Bauchemin and 2) Beachemin preferred to try to sign with Anaheim. I think Bob did a great job of getting Spacek when Beauchemin rejected us. Sure we could have waited, but there was a good chance that Anaheim (or someone else) signs Beauchemin and another team signs Spacek while we wait.

By the same token, he picked up the following in 2 days for nothing: Cammalleri, Gionta, Spacek , and Gill. (Plus you have conveniently forgotten the draft pick we got in the deal for Schneider). As for signing and moving Kovalev, Koivu and Tanguay. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Firstly this is a very good way to discourage future UFAs from signing in Montreal. More significantly, do you see teams lining up to trade for any of these guys? The best of the lot, Tanguay still hasn't been picked up by any team and he is free. Yes we overpaid to get Gomez. But its pretty clear that we had to. Virtually everyone has said for years that we need a #1 centre. We know Gainey has been working for months trying to get one and that he approached at least 5 teams looking for a trade. The trade with NYR was the best available deal. I agree it seems like we had to give up too much, but its clear that it must have been the best of the options. If he doesn't make this deal we don't get any #1 centre and we don't sign Cammalleri nor Gionta. Then we're back with the same core as last year and they're all 1 year older. For those who are critical of the 5 year plan, that's not a good outcome. Kovy is certainly better on some nights than Gionta. But on most nights Gionta is better. Plus he's much younger. At the end of his 5 year contract he'll still be 2 years younger than Kovalev is now. (I think Ottawa is in for a shock. With the way Kovalev was idolized here and still dogged it he will be coasting all year in Ottawa - except for the 6 games against us). I think you are underrating Spacek here. He is certainly much better than the Komisarek we saw last year. I expect Komisarek will rebound but I am not sure he will every reach the level of 2 years ago again. Anyhow, Gainey tried to resign him and he took the same money to go elsewhere. What does that tell you? Okay so you don't think he is worth more than $5M. If we offer him $5M then he signs with the leafs. We save the $6M and who do you want to get at forward with the savings? There is no one available for $5M anywhere near as good (except maybe Tanguay). So you don't like Tanguay yet you criticize Gainey for not resigning him. I would have liked to retain Tanguay myself. As I said above, the idea of a sign and trade sounds nice but it isn't realistic. Above you refered to Gomez as a smurf but you want Koivu back? When Gainey arrived we had one of the worst teams in the league and one of the worst farm systems. In the short time he has been here we have become a respectable team and have one of the best group of prospects. How this can be cpnsidered a failure is beyond me.

This post is right on the money. The only thing I disagree with is the PPPS.

So Bob dumped Carboneau and then 3 months later he replaces the core. From this we are supposed to conclude that the players he let go were a cancer in the dressing room and the reason we haven't won the cup during the last 5 years??? Why doesn't Bob's firing Carboneau first prove he was the worst offender??? To me, Bob fired Carbo because the team was playing terribly. Much worse then their skill level indicated they should. He let the players go because he felt it was time to go in a new direction. That doesn't mean the players had a bad attitude. Just as it doesn't mean Carbo had a bad attitude.

I haven't seen it but any film about linear algebra is geeky - although I can see why it would be wildly popular with the college crowd.

I think that somethings up since he has offer Komisarek a contract but not Tanguay. This makes me think Bob feels he has a reasonable chance to get a star forward. I'll go out on a limb and predict he's after Marleau. San Jose needs to shake up their team if only to appease their fans. I wouldn't be surprised if we trade Plek + O'Byrne and a couple of our prospects (Weber and Kristo say) for Marleau.

So this means that all that matters is scoring, does it? If all that matters is who scores the most, then every save or blocked shot is just as good as a goal. I guarantee that Allan Bester had more saves per game then either Gretzky or Lemieux had goals. I don't think that means he was better but it does mean that he did more for the goals for vs goals against then either of them. I do agree that Gretzky was probably the best ever. But the idea that this is settled by the fact that he has more goal scoring records than anyone else just isn't true.

Yes this is a very impressive list. But these records only show 1 thing: Mario and Wayne were the most prolific goal (and assist) scorers ever. It doesn't address the fact that they played in an era of high scoring and it doesn't say anything about comparing them to a Dman (like Orr) or a goaltender.

Before we consider spending a pick, I need to know which side. Also doesn't this lead to frequent spinning?

This is a common misconception. In my opinion many journeyman players have a better understanding of both how the game is played and how to coach players. Most superstars rely on their great skill and natural talents to succeed. This does not build deep understanding of how the game is played. Being an average or below average player means dealing with your coaches a lot and it leads to understanding fundamentals. Not very many superstars have made good coaches. There are a few exceptions (Toe Blake). Lafleur, a superstar, would make a terrible coach precisely because he doesn't understand how the game is played by non-stars.

Example #3 (From the news earlier this week). The government pays interest on taxes that corporations pay if it turns out that they overpaid. The current rate of interest the government pays exceeds what banks pay (3% vs 0.2% iirc). So businesses intentionally overpay and refuse to take money back and then insist (and receive) their extra 2.8% interest. This is money taken from citizens' taxes. Capitalism may encourage competition but it also encourages greed and this sort of cheating. Many (most?) companies find it easier to cheat than to innovate.

I definitely think Jordan Staal is a guy we should target. He's stuck behind Crosby and so not utilized to his full potential in Pittsburgh. This means we have a chance to pry him loose. If Pittsburgh loses against Washington (or even in the ECF) they will probably be looking to make some changes. He won't come cheap but I think we could see a win-win deal for him.

I have no illusions that China is a great society. But the claim that Capitalism is doing well and in particular that all the other systems that have been tried have failed is just propaganda. It doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I agree, we should move this discussion to the lounge, (although I don't think I want to say anthing more than the previous paragraph) but perhaps a mod should split the thread.

Is that so? Why is it that the US is $11 trillion in debt ($7 trillion of this is government debt) and $1 trillion of it is owed to China?

The league needs to fight Balsillie tooth and nail and they will. If he succeeds in his plan it will be very bad for the owners and the league. He is arguing that league rules are an unfair restraint on trade and that Southwestern Ontario has a right to another club and he has the right to make money by moving his team there. If he wins then any team can move anywhere. Maybe even I don't need an existing team to put a team in Toronto. What happens if LA announces they are moving to St. John's? Suppose Atlanta decides they can do a better job of making money in Buffalo than the Sabres - just move in and undercut the Sabres until they are forced to move. Probably not a very good business plan but if the league cannot prevent it there might be someone dumb/stubborn enough to try. The league knows that a team in Hamilton (say) would be very profitable. The owners could hold an auction if they wanted and sell an expansion franchise there for a lot of money. Instead Balsillie has a right to move there? How can the league hope to help out small market teams if any team can move whenever and wherever they want? Soon people will be buying up small market teams, moving them to big markets and then selling them for a quick profit. The league will have lost its ability to approve new owners. No business can operate successfully under these conditions.

No team is built entirely from draft picks. If trades and free agent signings were forbidden then the way to draft would be to draft according to need. But in the NHL, teams draft the best players they can and then make trades or sign free agents to fill in the holes. Sure right now we need a big centre and a power winger would help. But trying to draft players to fill these needs is very difficult. We will have 6 or 7 draft picks in June. The guy we pick in the first round will have about a 50% chance of making the NHL. Each of the rest has a much smaller chance of making it. If we pick 6 bruising forwards we won't know for 3 or 4 years which if any will make the team. Now we can't really afford to wait that long. We need to acquire some big forwards now. This means we will make a trade and/or sign someone or a couple of guys to fill this role. Or maybe Pacioretti will develop into a star. In 3 or 4 years we may be desperately seeking a goalie or maybe a speedy sniper. It is almost impossible to know now what we will need in 2012. The fact is, any pick not in the top 15 or so, is a gamble. The vast majority never make the NHL. For this reason you pick the guy you think is the best player available and hope you can develop him into an asset. Then you trade your assets to fill in the holes on your team.

Now who is being a douche? and what do you mean "from the outside"? Are you part of an elite few who allowed to post in this thread? For that matter I have already posted earlier in this thread. HabitForming made a great post providing a convincing statistic showing that contrary to the common wisdom Detroit's recent drafting has not been head and shoulders better than the Habs recent drafting. You don't agree - fine. Then you try to attack his stat by saying that it is "useless" solely because it contradicts your position. They you start name calling when someone points this out.

This is a wonderful point of view. Any statistic which contradicts your opinion is useless since it lends support to something that must be false.

Your example seems to suggest that we should draft the 6-4 220+ lbs centre. (Is this Turner Stevenson? It can't be Linday Vallis because we took him 13th overall not 16th. Possibly it is Matt Higgins, we took him 18th) The 5-10 defenceman must have a lot of potential since he is ranked higher than the centre. Why take a lower ranked guy when you can get a higher one? What is the point of ranking?