thib46 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Spector reports this...... "TORONTO STAR: Kevin McGran reports Montreal Canadiens GM Bob Gainey is expected to fly to Sweden this week to meet with Mat Sundin in hopes of convincing the now-former Maple Leafs captain to sign with the Habs.McGran also reports if Gainey is successful in signing Sundin the compensation to the Leafs, who granted Gainey permission to negotiate with him, will likely be a player rather than a draft pick, suggesting winger Chris Higgins might be heading to Toronto. TORONTO SUN: Mike Zeisberger reports of speculation the Habs might ship their first round pick in 2009 to Toronto as compensation for Sundin. SPECTOR'S NOTE: Gainey is going for it this summer to improve his team's chances of winning the Stanley Cup next season. I agree with McGran's suggestion that the return could be Higgins, as the Habs will need to free up some cap space to comfortably absorb Sundin's possible contract, newly-acquired Alex Tanguay's $5.25 million for next season, and for Andrei Kostitsyn's new contract. Is this wishful thinking on McGrans part, or could it be that Gainey would consider this a fair trade. I like all the speculation for compensation you all have written......Grabs, draft picks etc....... but as usual seem to be easy trade offs for habs fans. I am a little worried that it just may be Higgins. Let's hope not. No way Higgins is compensation for the right to sign or even if Montreal signs Sundin. Draft picks and maybe a player like Grabovski, but Higgins is too high a price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 No way Higgins is compensation for the right to sign or even if Montreal signs Sundin. Draft picks and maybe a player like Grabovski, but Higgins is too high a price. I really really really hope you are right. I also believe that giving up higgins just ot be able to talk to Sundin is way too high a price. a 2nd round pick or a guy lie Grabovski or D'agostini is worht it, but higgins is way too much. I'm really getting tired of reading all these idits who call themselves reporters in Toronto thinking that Bob will give them Higgins just because they allowed to taolk to Sundin! Bob would have to be nuts to have promised Fletcher that much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAKS-AVENUE Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I really really really hope you are right. I also believe that giving up higgins just ot be able to talk to Sundin is way too high a price. a 2nd round pick or a guy lie Grabovski or D'agostini is worht it, but higgins is way too much. I'm really getting tired of reading all these idits who call themselves reporters in Toronto thinking that Bob will give them Higgins just because they allowed to taolk to Sundin! Bob would have to be nuts to have promised Fletcher that much! I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you guys or the reporters. Who knows who is involved in the deal, but you need to keep one thing straight. If in fact it is Higgins......I don't know. It will only happen if Mats actually signs in Montreal , if he doesn't the Leafs get nothing....so it's not Higgins for the rights to speak with Mats, it's Higgins if Mats signs with us, so it would be just like a trade at the end of the day. . On the other hand July 1st is around the corner Sundin's price will dramatically shoot into the 8-9 millions should other teams get involved. Maybe getting a deal done early will save Gainey a million or 2 and Higgins is worth the price in Gainey's eyes. Higgins was involved in the deal last season. Mats used his no-trade clause to stop the deal. What does that tell you? 1. Gainey was giving Higgins away anyway. 2. Mats said NO. He might not even want to play in Montreal, so there is a very very big chance that this whole Sundin to Montreal will never happen anyway. What do you think of them apples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Higgins has been reported by some reporters to be part of the old deal, but I've never seen that confirmed in any way that convinces me. I cannot imagine Higgins getting moved, especially considering that he and Komisarek took parallel deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 It will only happen if Mats actually signs in Montreal , if he doesn't the Leafs get nothing....so it's not Higgins for the rights to speak with Mats, it's Higgins if Mats signs with us, so it would be just like a trade at the end of the day. . On the other hand July 1st is around the corner Sundin's price will dramatically shoot into the 8-9 millions should other teams get involved. Maybe getting a deal done early will save Gainey a million or 2 and Higgins is worth the price in Gainey's eyes. Higgins was involved in the deal last season. Mats used his no-trade clause to stop the deal. What does that tell you? I don't follow your logic. Yes the Habs only have to give up something if they sign Sundin but it doesn't mitigate the fact that the "trade" is largely for the exclusive bargaining rights. As you state lower in your post, July 1st is around the corner. Trading Higgins would essentially be the same as dealing him for a slightly inflated salary...you are suggesting the team would deal Higgins for $1-2 million...which would be a pretty awful return considering his value. If you were willing to deal Higgins at the deadline WHY would you offer the same value a week before the player is available for nothing more then a few extra dollars. The feared cap issue is not that big a deal...the Habs can easily make room by not resigning a player or two, and/or moving a player to the AHL, or even buying someone out. I will be very shocked if the Habs dealt Higgins for the rights to Sundin. Perhaps the signing would trigger an even bigger deal which would involve Higgins, picks and other Leafs players. But Higgins alone for exclusive signing rights is ridiculous...even if it is only triggered by an actual signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 The feared cap issue is not that big a deal...the Habs can easily make room by not resigning a player or two, and/or moving a player to the AHL, or even buying someone out. Agreed. THe first player who could be bought out is Dandy. At 1.75 million$ it's way too much. If we buy him out, that 600,000$ less on the payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 how many more buyouts can the habs make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Higgins has been reported by some reporters to be part of the old deal, but I've never seen that confirmed in any way that convinces me. I cannot imagine Higgins getting moved, especially considering that he and Komisarek took parallel deals. You're right on he Simonus. In FACT, Gainey has even gone as far to deny that Higgins was part of the original offer. Gainey is a no BS kinda guy, I don't think he'd change now. Everyone here is panicking on a return of assets to Toronto, listen to Gainey's words. He didn't even say it was a one way street. His Direct quote was "We've agreed to something with the Leafs that if we come to contract with him (Mats), then at that point, we would exchange the things we've agreed upon," That says nothing like "then we would send Toronto something that we agreed upon" it says "EXCHANGE THE THINGS", could it be you missed what he told us? Maybe there is more to this then, maybe a Grabovsky and Dandenault for Sundin's rights and something else. Either way both teams are involved if Sundin signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I don't understand the panic on Higgins. The guy behind the Higgins rumours in Toronto is Steve Simmons. The same guy who said before last season that Sundin's career was over because of a degenerative hip, the same guy who rolled his eyes on the reporters when denials came out about Sundin's hip and rolled his eyes again when Gainey stated that he never talked to the Leafs about a Sundin trade at the deadline. I usually understand Spector's reasoning on things, but I have no idea where he is coming from on this one. What in the 5 years that Gainey has been running this team has convinced any of us that he is willing to give Higgins away for a 10 day negotiating window when the precedent on previous deals has been draft picks? Add to the fact that Gainey just acquired Alex Tanguay, a 28 year old PPG forward for a 25th pick, he also balked at dealing HIggins before the deadline and has repeatedly said he is one of the guys that he would like to build around. None of it makes any sense, and it is more baseless reporting from hopeful Toronto media. The Leafs have ZERO leverage in this deal and are scrambling to get any type of asset for their all-time leading scorer. How does one with no leverage, score a player who would be the best forward on his roster for a 10 day negotiating window? Until Gainey proves he is an idiot, I will not assume has has made an idiotic move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 The reporter that said it was Higgins at the deadline was Steve Simmons, who is a notorious blowhard who "reported" that Sundin had major hip surgery and was going to retire a year ago. If it's Grabovski, that's high, but a doable exchange. More than likely it's Washington's 2nd rounder next year, or even Montreal's 3rd rounder. Let's not forget that Sundin isn't going to sign with Montreal for more than 2 years. Nashville traded the rights to Timmonen and Hartnell for a 1st last year and Philly turned and signed them for 8 years and 6 years respectively. Philly got core players for over a half of decade for a 1st rounder... I doubt we're giving up a first rounder for an early chance to sign a one year deal. And the Higgins suggestion is just crazy. He's scored over 70 goals in 3 NHL seasons... that's an incredibly valuable asset and isn't just thrown away for less than 2 weeks of negotiation time with a star veteran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecurb Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 From what I understand NO offer was made for Sundin at the trade deadline, because Sundin refused to waive his NTC. So all this garbage about us offering Higgins and ??? is just media driven BS. And why would Gainey even think about trading Higgins. Here's a kid who grew up loving and wanting to play for the Habs. His best friend happens to be Komisarek who will be a UFA next season. Trading Higgins would be a incredibly stupid move since you might lose Komisarek also. Didn't Gainey at his PC, say something like he had depth at certain positions and some of those assets could be used to upgrade the team. Well, not those words exactly, but from that I felt he meant he had prospect depth at certain positons and he' d be willing to move some of that depth. So, Grabovsky,Weber,Fischer or Emelin might be compensation if we sign Sundin. In fact, Gainey might give him a list of 3 or 4 players and let him choose the one he likes best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) From what I understand NO offer was made for Sundin at the trade deadline, because Sundin refused to waive his NTC. So all this garbage about us offering Higgins and ??? is just media driven BS. And why would Gainey even think about trading Higgins. Here's a kid who grew up loving and wanting to play for the Habs. His best friend happens to be Komisarek who will be a UFA next season. Trading Higgins would be a incredibly stupid move since you might lose Komisarek also. Didn't Gainey at his PC, say something like he had depth at certain positions and some of those assets could be used to upgrade the team. Well, not those words exactly, but from that I felt he meant he had prospect depth at certain positons and he' d be willing to move some of that depth. So, Grabovsky,Weber,Fischer or Emelin might be compensation if we sign Sundin. In fact, Gainey might give him a list of 3 or 4 players and let him choose the one he likes best. If it is anything more than a pick I will be pissed. I could live with Grabs, but I would not be to keen on helping rebuild a division rival. Everybody needs to get over their inferiority complex and fears of losing out once again. The price will not be Chris Higgins Howard Berger covers the Leafs daily and has been doing so for the last 15 years. Check out his take on the matter. He thinks Sundin requested Montreal. http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=15807 Berger is a Leaf fan, but he also has been very critical of them over the last year or so. He also has a hell of a lot of connections within the organization and a very solid relationship with Sundin from what I have heard. I trust his take over the Steve Simmons and Damien Cox's of the world. Edited June 23, 2008 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yeah, something like a 2nd rounder seems like the most reasonable thing to be going back, but I wouldn't be surprised if Fletcher wanted a prospect and Bob consented. Grabovski? It makes sense (although how much would this enrage Don Cherry and the rest of the blowhards of Leafs nation? A small, soft finesse player in exchange for their franchise player). Grabovski is probably the maximum that we'll send back, it might be a package of a lesser prospect with a pick. Don't worry, people, Higgins will not be sent to Toronto. We're ADDING assets at this point, the fact that we traded two high picks for Tanguay (from a group that hates to trade picks) tells us the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I think it will have to be a NHl salaried plaer. The habs will need to shed some cash. Not signing any UFA's will help, but the will still need to clear someone based on the amount of roster spots and cap hits. BG i'm sure doesn't want to max out with the lineup, he may need to tweek later in the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I think it will have to be a NHl salaried plaer. The habs will need to shed some cash. Not signing any UFA's will help, but the will still need to clear someone based on the amount of roster spots and cap hits. BG i'm sure doesn't want to max out with the lineup, he may need to tweek later in the year. The Leafs are trying to dump NHL contracts, not pick them up. Unless it is Grabovski, I just don't see any other potential fits. Bob will have to find another team to dump salary on (Dandenault). He said he wasn't buying anyone out because he believed everyone had "value", so that must mean there is a trade market, even if it is a small one, for a guy like Dandy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecurb Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 If it is anything more than a pick I will be pissed. I could live with Grabs, but I would not be to keen on helping rebuild a division rival. Everybody needs to get over their inferiority complex and fears of losing out once again. The price will not be Chris Higgins Howard Berger covers the Leafs daily and has been doing so for the last 15 years. Check out his take on the matter. He thinks Sundin requested Montreal. http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=15807 Berger is a Leaf fan, but he also has been very critical of them over the last year or so. He also has a hell of a lot of connections within the organization and a very solid relationship with Sundin from what I have heard. I trust his take over the Steve Simmons and Damien Cox's of the world. I loved reading what Howard Berger had to say, he makes alot of sense. The reason I think the compensation could be a prospect rather than a pick is I think you can only have 50 players under contract and we must be very close to that limit. Not to mention our prospect depth is still incredibly strong and losing a mid-level prospect would be no big deal. It might actually free space. But, I also have a selfish reason since I intend to go to the 09 entry draft in Montreal. So, the more picks we retain the better. Anyway I'm getting this feeling the first words I might hear are " We'd like to congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on winning their 25th Stanley Cup" :hlogo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 We still have a ways to go to hit 50 players under contract, although I haven't taken the time to figure out what holes are in our farm system and how filling them would add up. I don't think it's a concern at this point for Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) The guy behind the Higgins rumours in Toronto is Steve Simmons. Yup, that's where I heard it. I was watching the Reporters with Dave Hodge on Saturday morning (guest reporters were Damien Cox, Michael Farber and Steve Simmons) Cox and Farber were bringing some interesting topics to the discussion and Simmons was just spewing nonsense . I'm still tired of hearing Higgins' name being circulated all over the place. This kid has a good chance of becoming our next captain. I don't want to see him go! But, I also have a selfish reason since I intend to go to the 09 entry draft in Montreal. So, the more picks we retain the better. I also will try to find some tickets. Anyway I'm getting this feeling the first words I might hear are " We'd like to congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on winning their 25th Stanley Cup" Don't say that, you're gonna jinx our chances!! Edited June 23, 2008 by Habsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yup, that's where I heard it. I was watching the Reporters with Dave Hodge on Saturday morning (guest reporters were Damien Cox, Michael Farber and Steve Simmons) Cox and Farber were bringing some interesting topics to the discussion and Simmons was just spewing nonsense . I'm still tired of hearing Higgins' name being circulated all over the place. This kid has a good chance of becoming our next captain. I don't want to see him go! Did you see him roll his eyes and assure Cox and Farber that the Higgins deal was real? What a clown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Althought I have to say that I would be pretty mad to see Mikhail Grabovsky emerge with rivals like the Leafs, especially since he would get a true opportunity with a rebuilding team like Toronto. In that context, he could get significant ice time and more importantly, carte blanche with his shortcomings (i.e not becoming a healthy scrath every time he makes a mistake on the ice). I personally just hate to see young players with potential leave before they got a least one good opportunity with us. I coudn't care less about losing Mike Ribeiro no matter what he does in the future, but I did care about guys like Hainsey and Beauchemin emerging a top 4 defensemen elsewhere just because we prefered the "safety" that an established marginal player like Dandeneault can bring. Just like I'm not happy with the fact that Chipchura isn't getting the opportunity to play at the NHL level althought he deserves it, and the signing of Sundin would not be good for him (because Carbonneau will prefer the "safety" of Begin and Kostopoulos despite the fact that Chipchura can bring a lot more to the table). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Did you see him roll his eyes and assure Cox and Farber that the Higgins deal was real? What a clown! Yup, that's what annoyed me the most about him. Bob Gainey goes on TV and tells us that there was no "done deal" between the Habs and the Leafs, and this bozo(Simmons) tries to make us believe otherwise, just so he won't look like a dick on T.V.!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I DIDN'T MAKE IT - FOUND ON ANOTHER BOARD. IT'S WELL DONE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 It just goes to show you that all media have no idea whats going on with these negoations and just come up with stuff out of there asses. I've heard everything thing from a roster player (Higgins, Bouillon, Lapierre, Grabovski), to a prospect Valentanko, Emelin, to a draft pick (1st, 2nd, 3rd). Nobody has any idea what the compensation will be, but knowing Bob (Good idea of talent) and Fletcher (Draft Smaft), it won't be much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I DIDN'T MAKE IT - FOUND ON ANOTHER BOARD. IT'S WELL DONE! Very nice. Is that Grabovski chasing him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAKS-AVENUE Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 But, I also have a selfish reason since I intend to go to the 09 entry draft in Montreal. So, the more picks we retain the better. Anyway I'm getting this feeling the first words I might hear are " We'd like to congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on winning their 25th Stanley Cup" :hlogo: or the Leafs picking "THE NEXT ONE" in 09. They will surely finish last next season. 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.