Wamsley01 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 (edited) Look, I understand why Bob traded Ribeiro. I understand the whole cap space thing as well! What I'm saying is that I would have been happier if we would've gotten a 3rd round pick for Ribs instead of a washed up, thirtysomething d-man who just had a knee operation! Maybe nobody offered a 3rd round pick. Maybe that was the best deal at the time. At the time the Habs needed defensive help. Niniima was a former All-Star and was a gamble. The gamble didn't pay off. But it wasn't an unnecessary gamble, the reasoning was sound and if all gamble's paid off, they wouldn't be called gamble's. I am fine with it. It is unimportant to me who isn't fine with it. I like the job he has done, and nobody has provided me with pre-emptive reasoning to change my mind. Like I stated earlier, the Souray move is the only one where I openly criticized Gainey before the deadline. Is it ok to criticize a GM after his tenure with hindsight at their disposal? Sure it is. But considering I had to watch a team flounder for 10 seasons and watched Gainey bring respect and calm rational decisions back to the team, not to mention bringing them back to contender status. I am very happy with the job he has done. If individuals want to credit Timmons or Boivin, they are welcome to do so. But an argument has yet to be presented to me to alter my perception. Edited February 18, 2009 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Wamsley, I don't think cap implications had anything at all to do with the deal. For one thing, we actually gained salary in the trade but maybe you're saying that Gainey wanted Niinimaa anyway and had to dump someone to make it work. But I don't think that was the case: I think Gainey wanted to get rid of Ribeiro at any cost and Niinimaa was the best he could get. Ribeiro was coming off a bad season and instead of giving him a paycut, Gainey unnecessarily offered Ribs a raise. Ribs even admitted this surprised him. Right after this, Gainey traded him. I think this rules out the "Gainey didn't think Ribs was a good investment at 2M per" argument. It was Gainey's decision to give him that much even when he knew he could get him signed for less. Look, I understand why Bob traded Ribeiro. I understand the whole cap space thing as well! What I'm saying is that I would have been happier if we would've gotten a 3rd round pick for Ribs instead of a washed up, thirtysomething d-man who just had a knee operation! Niinimaa wasn't worth much less than a 3rd round pick. Maybe a 5th, but we needed another d-man with the injuries we had. Such a small difference makes it a horrible trade? The point is that your position of Ribeiro being about to break out was nowhere near as popular back then as it is now. Just about every Habs fan wanted Ribs out at the time, and long before the trade. Now that he's broken out, everyone's saying that it was obvious and they knew it all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I love the ribs debates.. no one ever changes their minds, but it is still fun. I thought the Ribs trade sucked.. pure and simple. If Bob had waited a bit into the season, he would have gotten far more for Ribs.. . And Ribs is having a very good season, again. When you look back in 10 years, Ribs will be a solid offensive player, Pleks will be a journey man with one good season. He needs to stick to being a 3rd line centre, a good two way guy. He will never be a top centre in this league, but then I don't thing Gainey ever expected him too. He has been looking for that centre for years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Wamsley, I don't think cap implications had anything at all to do with the deal. For one thing, we actually gained salary in the trade but maybe you're saying that Gainey wanted Niinimaa anyway and had to dump someone to make it work. But I don't think that was the case: I think Gainey wanted to get rid of Ribeiro at any cost and Niinimaa was the best he could get. Ribeiro was coming off a bad season and instead of giving him a paycut, Gainey unnecessarily offered Ribs a raise. Ribs even admitted this surprised him. Right after this, Gainey traded him. I think this rules out the "Gainey didn't think Ribs was a good investment at 2M per" argument. It was Gainey's decision to give him that much even when he knew he could get him signed for less. Niinimaa wasn't worth much less than a 3rd round pick. Maybe a 5th, but we needed another d-man with the injuries we had. Such a small difference makes it a horrible trade? The point is that your position of Ribeiro being about to break out was nowhere near as popular back then as it is now. Just about every Habs fan wanted Ribs out at the time, and long before the trade. Now that he's broken out, everyone's saying that it was obvious and they knew it all along. Niniima was off the cap the next season. At that point Ribs was an RFA during a time where nobody would have offered him an offer sheet. His 59 point 2006-07 season earned him a 2.9M salary, a bump that Gainey did not want to pay. So Gainey got rid of the salary obligation the next season. Could he have went after a pick alone to shed the salary? Yes he could have. But Boulion was injured and they were struggling with defensive depth, so he took back an asset that season that he thought could help immediately and cleared the book the next summer to re-up Plekanec, Ryder and Higgins whose raises essentially added up to $2M. Nobody saw Ryder's collapse coming, so looking back with today's reasoning it is easy to come up with assumptions that were not being made 3 years ago. He could have waited all season and traded Ribeiro in the summer, but he obviously dealt with him in the same manner as Grabovksi and Kovalev right now. Addition by subtraction. Everybody seems to wash over the ridiculous flopping act against the Bruins, the fight in practice with Koivu, the shots he took at Koivu through the media, the whole three amigos nonsense. The fanbase was tired of it, as was management. I think he signed him to trade him. I understand the reasoning and I believe that $$ and the cap space was a factor. If Boullion is not injured he probably dumps Ribs for a pick, but I believe he saw an opportunity to place a band aid on a wound and clear the space in 2007. That is why I think there were cap ramifications Edited February 19, 2009 by Wamsley01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Niniima was off the cap the next season. At that point Ribs was an RFA during a time where nobody would have offered him an offer sheet. His 59 point 2006-07 season earned him a 2.9M salary, a bump that Gainey did not want to pay. So Gainey got rid of the salary obligation the next season. Could he have went after a pick alone to shed the salary? Yes he could have. But Boulion was injured and they were struggling with defensive depth, so he took back an asset that season that cleared the book the next summer to re-up Plekanec, Ryder and Higgins whose raises essentially added up to $2M. Nobody saw Ryder's collapse coming, so looking back with today's reasoning it is easy to come up with assumptions that were not being made 3 years ago. He could have waited all season and traded Ribeiro in the summer, but he obviously dealt with him in the same manner as Grabovksi and Kovalev right now. Addition by subtraction. Everybody seems to wash over the ridiculous flopping act against the Bruins, the fight in practice with Koivu, the shots he took at Koivu through the media, the whole three amigos nonsense. The fanbase was tired of it, as was management. I think he signed him to trade him. I understand the reasoning and I believe that $$ and the cap space was a factor. If Boullion is not injured he probably dumps Ribs for a pick, but I believe he saw an opportunity to place a band aid on a wound and clear the space in 2007. That is why I think there were cap ramifications Again I toally agree. The last paragraphs of your posts also bring some "new" old water to the "debate" Added to that what no one said out loud up to now. Let's say it's not Niinimaa. Let's say we got a 2nd and a 3rd round pick for a guy who Gainey thought was a poison (the 3 amigos stories, etc) and who Gainey thought was overpaid... And, who, on top of all, Gainey thought was hindering Plekanec's developpement by using valuable icetime. Then, after getting those picks, Gainey shops, finds nothing but Niinimaa... and since Dmen are so scarce, the price is extremely high... Even for Niinimaa, we have to pay a 2nd and 3rd rounder... So Gainey has no other choice but to get Niinimaa for a 2nd and 3rd rounder. That's a very hypothetical scenario and in no way a tentative event reconstruction... but that's just in order to help the stubborn who think that we could have done better. At that very moment, at the end of preseason of that season, my strong opinion is that, although with hindsight it wasn't a good move, at that time it was a good move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Again I toally agree. The last paragraphs of your posts also bring some "new" old water to the "debate" Added to that what no one said out loud up to now. Let's say it's not Niinimaa. Let's say we got a 2nd and a 3rd round pick for a guy who Gainey thought was a poison (the 3 amigos stories, etc) and who Gainey thought was overpaid... And, who, on top of all, Gainey thought was hindering Plekanec's developpement by using valuable icetime. Then, after getting those picks, Gainey shops, finds nothing but Niinimaa... and since Dmen are so scarce, the price is extremely high... Even for Niinimaa, we have to pay a 2nd and 3rd rounder... So Gainey has no other choice but to get Niinimaa for a 2nd and 3rd rounder. That's a very hypothetical scenario and in no way a tentative event reconstruction... but that's just in order to help the stubborn who think that we could have done better. At that very moment, at the end of preseason of that season, my strong opinion is that, although with hindsight it wasn't a good move, at that time it was a good move. I like the way you think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Niniima was off the cap the next season. At that point Ribs was an RFA during a time where nobody would have offered him an offer sheet. His 59 point 2006-07 season earned him a 2.9M salary, a bump that Gainey did not want to pay. So Gainey got rid of the salary obligation the next season. Could he have went after a pick alone to shed the salary? Yes he could have. But Boulion was injured and they were struggling with defensive depth, so he took back an asset that season that he thought could help immediately and cleared the book the next summer to re-up Plekanec, Ryder and Higgins whose raises essentially added up to $2M. Nobody saw Ryder's collapse coming, so looking back with today's reasoning it is easy to come up with assumptions that were not being made 3 years ago. He could have waited all season and traded Ribeiro in the summer, but he obviously dealt with him in the same manner as Grabovksi and Kovalev right now. Addition by subtraction. Everybody seems to wash over the ridiculous flopping act against the Bruins, the fight in practice with Koivu, the shots he took at Koivu through the media, the whole three amigos nonsense. The fanbase was tired of it, as was management. I think he signed him to trade him. I understand the reasoning and I believe that $$ and the cap space was a factor. If Boullion is not injured he probably dumps Ribs for a pick, but I believe he saw an opportunity to place a band aid on a wound and clear the space in 2007. That is why I think there were cap ramifications I already agreed with everything with except the salary part since I don't think Gainey was forced to give Ribeiro that raise. I remember the day after the signing, Ribeiro himself said that he was surprised to be getting a raise after that season. I assumed at the time that Gainey thought it might have improved his play but then he traded him right after. If he signed him to trade him, why would he give Ribeiro more than he's worth, hurting his trade value? It was a weird situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I already agreed with everything with except the salary part since I don't think Gainey was forced to give Ribeiro that raise. I remember the day after the signing, Ribeiro himself said that he was surprised to be getting a raise after that season. I assumed at the time that Gainey thought it might have improved his play but then he traded him right after. If he signed him to trade him, why would he give Ribeiro more than he's worth, hurting his trade value? It was a weird situation. Probably something that we will never know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 I already agreed with everything with except the salary part since I don't think Gainey was forced to give Ribeiro that raise. I remember the day after the signing, Ribeiro himself said that he was surprised to be getting a raise after that season. I assumed at the time that Gainey thought it might have improved his play but then he traded him right after. If he signed him to trade him, why would he give Ribeiro more than he's worth, hurting his trade value? It was a weird situation. 1. Agents negotiate contracts. His agent told Ribs he would ask for e.g. 4M per season (double of his 1.95M I believe) 2. Ribs is full of shit. He / his agent wouldn't have accepted anything that wouldn't have been at least a 1M increase over his former contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitforming Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Keep in mind ol' Mickey Ribs had alot of growing up to do and it wasn't going to happen in Montreal. This wasn't a John Leclair situation where he was just showing the signs of being dominant and then was traded. Ribs wouldn't be the player he is today without the trade. In Dallas there isn't the friends list and nightlife that he had in Montreal and he was forced to pay attention to the ice more because he didn't know anyone to assist in being a distraction. Add to that his child was born in his first season in the Lone Star State(which is a huge wake up call, trust me on this ) and all of a sudden Mikey had to grow up and stop his foolish/childlike behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Kovalev will be back with the team tomorrow and get a 5 points game saturday. He will then be traded for Ovechking. Only the first part is true. Kovalev back with the team tomorrow as per RDS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFT77 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Kovalev will be back with the team tomorrow and get a 5 points game saturday. He will then be traded for Ovechking. Only the first part is true. Kovalev back with the team tomorrow as per RDS. Will be good to have Kovy back in the lineup. Hopefully he slots in for Dandy on the right side and Dandy goes back to D, and Bouillon is put in the pressbox where he will benefit the Habs the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Personally, I'd rather see Kovalev traded - unless the Kovy we get back is the Kovy of last season. Which I'm not betting the rent on. Edited February 19, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFT77 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Personally, I'd rather see Kovalev traded - unless the Kovy we get back is the Kovy of last season. Which I'm not betting the rent on. At least Kovy has the potential to be a tremendous impact for the Habs. On the other hand, you know what you get with Bouillon, and it's not much. Yes he does bring a little grit and stand up for teammates, but their are many negatives to his game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) Trade Kovalev eh, for what more draft picks?? Imagine a scenario in which Koivu says, screw it, I'll sign in Minnesota to play with my brother. Add to the mix that Tanguay never really wanted to sign here, imagine he signs elswhere. The 5 year Bob Gainey plan we'll be out the window, and we'll be starting over. Edited February 20, 2009 by Habsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Why do you say that? Look at the youth, the team turnsover. Big deal, the have sucked 14 out of the last 15 years regardless of the roster. If those things happen you are left with Pacioretty Pleks Ak46 Higgins Blank D'Agi LAts Lapierre Kosto Stewart Blank Laraque Hamrlik, Gorges Markov are all signed Price and Halak. That looks decent, young fast. Add to the mix a ton of money in the offseason Boumeester, Emelin, Weber Get a centre and your in business. it's not that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I wonder is Bob is hell bent on being a buyer at the deadline or if two more weeks of loosing will turn him in to a seller? Short of an absolute miracle of a trade (like Lecavalier for Begin) we aren't winning the cup. I am leaning on the seller side already. Dump any UFA that you don't intend to re-sign for what ever you can get. Let Koivu walk at the end of the season or ask him to waive his NTC. Chris is right about a decent new, young core already here. We just need some centres. Send the rest packing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Why do you say that? Look at the youth, the team turnsover. Big deal, the have sucked 14 out of the last 15 years regardless of the roster. If those things happen you are left with Pacioretty Pleks Ak46 Higgins Blank D'Agi LAts Lapierre Kosto Stewart Blank Laraque Hamrlik, Gorges Markov are all signed Price and Halak. That looks decent, young fast. Add to the mix a ton of money in the offseason Boumeester, Emelin, Weber Get a centre and your in business. it's not that bad. That first line of yours doesn't get us into the playoffs. Boumeester?? The list of high profile free agents that we've tried and failed to sign is so long it's embarrassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If we are going to trade Kovalev - which I don't advise unless he comes back and is even worse - then it needs to be for a new centre. One scenario i've heard involves Martin Hanzal of the Coyotes. He falls in the good 2nd to great 3rd line centre range along with Plekanec and Lapierre (and Koivu and Lang). This would allow us to let Koivu walk next season (IMO this is both necessary for the team and what Koivu himself wants) and, if he's able to play, sign Lang on a one-year, very cheap deal, maybe with some bonuses involved. Not only was Lang a decent, consistent player but he was an awesome guy to have in the dressing room. Look at the bullshit this team is getting into with the media, Lang is one of the few truly clean guys out there and a real leader for the team, even if he can only be a fourth liner next season. This scenario would leave us with Plekanec, Hanzal, Lapierre and (Lang AND/OR Chipchura) at C. It would also give us the cap space necessary to bring back Schneider, Komisarek, Tanguay AND make a pitch for Hossa or Gaborik or Franzen or someone less high-key. And last but not least: no more Koivu, no more Kovalev. A totally new atmosphere/team but with nearly all the same faces. By the way, if Lang's done, I wouldn't be against bringing back Radek Bonk at the salary he's making. So this is my solution. But - I'll add that if Kovalev comes back and starts playing like a leader, I am against trading him and even for the possibility of re-signing him. It means our extra free agent money gained by letting Saku walk would go toward a new centre instead of a winger. I'd still be in favour of picking up Lang even if he has his damn leg amputated. That guy was the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Habsy, the players who you listed are playing lousy. Tanguay, Kovalev and Koivu COMBINED don't have 40 goals. The price tag for them is almost 16 million. They could Gaboril for ha;lf that and get more goals. That first line i mentioned are the only ones putting up points currently. There are plenty of good offensive players in this year's UFA's. BG can afford to over pay a Boumeester, most players take the highest bidder, not always. You sign a couple of centers and the team is better. The D core will need to be severly upgraded Adding a Boumeester, Emelin, Weber will help. Dandy, Bouillon, Begin, Brisby is close to 6 more mill they can spend. Plus moving those guys gets you extra picks to make further deals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsy Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I love your optimism, I just worry about giving up on the most exciting player, Kovalev, we've had in 20 years. While I trust in Bob, I don't like the way this was handled. Making a fool of Alex, only to invite him back, and hope like hell he discovers his game and get the organization a couple of home playoff games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 we're sure gonna be in a good position to make a high bid for a big player this summer: kovalev = gone lang = surely gone b/c of age, although i loved him. if he stays, it's a one year deal, reduced $ and it's because we're not keeping koivu koivu = stays only if it's reduced $ I can't believe he's gonna still be making 4.5M + after this season. tanguay = reduced $ for sure I hope they keep him. he's the only one I really want to keep. schneider might come back, but at small fraction of his actual salary if we don't have the room to make a pitch at Bou or Gabo with all of that, "Jcapote!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 we're sure gonna be in a good position to make a high bid for a big player this summer: kovalev = gone lang = surely gone b/c of age, although i loved him. if he stays, it's a one year deal, reduced $ and it's because we're not keeping koivu koivu = stays only if it's reduced $ I can't believe he's gonna still be making 4.5M + after this season. tanguay = reduced $ for sure I hope they keep him. he's the only one I really want to keep. schneider might come back, but at small fraction of his actual salary if we don't have the room to make a pitch at Bou or Gabo with all of that, "Jcapote!" Kovy = 0 Lang = 2M (if we still want him) Koivu = 3M (The captain makes it happen) Tanguay = 4.5M Schneider = 1.5M (doubt Gainey offers him more than 2M) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Kovy = 0 Lang = 2M (if we still want him) Koivu = 3M (The captain makes it happen) Tanguay = 4.5M Schneider = 1.5M (doubt Gainey offers him more than 2M) I agree, if you care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I agree, if you care 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.