Jump to content

Habs put Halak on the market


rafikz

Recommended Posts

Never what I said. Just said you neglected one of his finer trades and that the Gomez deal is nothing like the Kovalev deal.

You still dont understand the parallel between the Gomez and Kovalev deals?

When a team wants to dump a player with a huge contract for financial purposes, the list of potential trade candidates is shrunk down. Those potential suitors come into the trade talks with extra leverage: financial leverage. That what makes the Gomez and Kovalev trades similar. Gainey had the leverage of being about the only GM who'd talk to NYR for either player. How hard a concept is it to grasp?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Question: would the Habs be better off with a top-four puck moving defender over a top-six forward? We have zero transition game (to be improved when Markov gets back, but the more the better the offense, IMO). I understand that a top-six attacking guy would be great... until he gets here, gets placed in the system, and then doesn't get the puck like all the boys we have on the ice now. Unless that top-six forward is of the calibre of Crosby, i.e. a guy who can actually take control of the offense on his own, I can't see someone stepping in to make that big a difference.

I'd answer: no. Reason is we already have plenty of puck-moving guys in the system. Aside from Markov, Spacek & Bergeron, we got Carle, Weber & Subban in the AHL.

When trading a strong, sure young asset like Halak, ideally I'd want an equally strong young asset but at a position of weakness. Looking at what we've got now, we've got plenty of checking guys and plenty of inconsistent shooting wingers. What we're missing is guys like Plekanec; ie. playmakers with all-around hockey sense that can do it all. The only one coming up would be Leblanc and he wont arrive tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No rush on trading Halak.

Goalies are the least problem right now, why make a new problem happen ?

If a i am not mistaken Halak will be at the Olympics for Slovakia.

If he has a good show there is trade vakue will make a huge upgrade, whatever he does in NHL.

His breakthrought can come with Slovakia having a strong tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Habsy, if you think that after 5 years, any lack of faith in Gainey's trading abilities should be automatically dismissed as some language issue; I think you've just stated the absolute weakest cliche possible. YOU win.

But not during the season, I think that was Wamsley's point.

Kozed, we're just playing word games with each other. My ultimate point though is this. I don't think a good backup with potential can get Bob much in the way of a trade. I'd love to see it happen, and I'd love to see said trade go in your good trade column, because you did point out some ugly looking transactions. If the best he can get, is some sort of parallel move, than I think Bob get's dumped on, when it may have been the top offer. Some of us here may be giving Mr. Halak to much value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kozed, we're just playing word games with each other. My ultimate point though is this. I don't think a good backup with potential can get Bob much in the way of a trade. I'd love to see it happen, and I'd love to see said trade go in your good trade column, because you did point out some ugly looking transactions. If the best he can get, is some sort of parallel move, than I think Bob get's dumped on, when it may have been the top offer. Some of us here may be giving Mr. Halak to much value.

Fair enough.

However if it's true there's no market for Halak, then Bob's best move is no move. However he might still move Halak just to give him a chance elsewhere. Bob's a really humane GM when it comes to those things.

Anyway, I still think that 30 starts from Halak + 52 from Price is better than 20 from someone else and 60 from Price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still dont understand the parallel between the Gomez and Kovalev deals?

When a team wants to dump a player with a huge contract for financial purposes, the list of potential trade candidates is shrunk down. Those potential suitors come into the trade talks with extra leverage: financial leverage. That what makes the Gomez and Kovalev trades similar. Gainey had the leverage of being about the only GM who'd talk to NYR for either player. How hard a concept is it to grasp?!

Again, Gomez had 33.5 million dollars left on his deal at the time of the trade, Kovalev had a million at most left on his deal at the time of the trade. Kovalev was a soon to be FA and Gomez is locked up long term. Money was no object in the Kovalev acquisition and it was everything in the Gomez acquisition.

How hard a concept is THIS to grasp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I like Halak a lot but sooner rather than later, Price is going to be settling into a 70 start goalie. Desjardin is tearing up the AHL so I would have no trouble at least trying him out in the NHL. If we can trade a backup goalie for a top 6 forward, I say go for it. Sergei, Pacioretty and Moen have all done a good job, but in reality we only have 5 top 6 guys right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Gomez had 33.5 million dollars left on his deal at the time of the trade, Kovalev had a million at most left on his deal at the time of the trade. Kovalev was a soon to be FA and Gomez is locked up long term. Money was no object in the Kovalev acquisition and it was everything in the Gomez acquisition.

How hard a concept is THIS to grasp?

Money was an object in Kovy's case, because a) NYR wanted to dump his contract, b) nobody still wanted to aquire Kovy and the remaning of his contract and c) nobody wanted to give something for Kovy with the intent of re-signing him came the summer. Nobody except us.

Really, Quebecois, give it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) would likely be true.

You have fabricated b and c for the purpose of your argument. How exactly do you know that the Habs were the only team willing to take on Kovalev's 1 million dollar price tag for the stretch run? Teams around the league take on similar price tags every year, even in the capped world, let alone before the cap was in place.

But I'm done with this. Believe whatever you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehehe -- anyway how long do we have to wait for the Halak trade? Days? Weeks? Trade deadline? And does the public declaration that he's "on the block" raise or lower the probable return?

Not sure if they will trade him; hey may just validate his value on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to those 4, I give you 14 sideways/downgrade moves:

Quintal for future considerations

Marcel Hossa for Garth Murray

Theodore for Aebischer

Zednik for a 3rd

4th for Johnson

Traverse for Biron

Ribeiro & 6th for Niinimaa & 5th (Conboy)

Samsonov for Cullimore & Salmelainen

Huet for 2nd (later traded to ATL + 3rd for Schneider).

1st and 2nd for Tanguay

Grabovski for Pateryn & 2nd

Locke for Belle

Begin for Janik

Chipchura for 4th

The ones in bold I take issue with as being downgrades or sideways moves (either because the deals themselves are insignificant enough that I even wonder why you mentioned them, or that I simply disagree that they were downgrades or sideways moves.)

The other ones I have to ask, what do you want? Theodore for Aebischer. Both struggling goalies that could have rebounded in different markets. What did you want him to get for Theodore?

Zednik for a 3rd/Johnson for a 4th. Zednik had stopped cutting inside and was becoming a perimeter player. Also, if I recall correctly, Gainey traded Johnson for a 4th and then Zednik for a 3rd. Johnson got 31 points for the Habs, Zednik got 21 points split between Washington and the Islanders. That's an upgrade set of deals in my opinion. What did you want him to get for a declining Zednik besides 10 more points and a draft pick 20 slots higher than the one he gave up?

Ribiero and 6th for Niinimaa and 5th. Bad trade in the end. But at a time when Ribiero's worth was at it's lowest, what did you want to get for him? Or, as I expect is the case, did you want him to stay in Montreal? I think that the best thing that happened to Ribiero was a trade out of Montreal, but that's something that can't really be proven.

Huet for 2nd. Since you think Gainey tends to make safe trades, I gotta say this one doesn't fit. The trade itself is safe, the mindset behind it was ballsy as all hell. This move thrust Price into the #1 spot. Whether that was the right move is an entirely different thread (or 50 threads by now) but it certainly was an unsafe, high risk/high reward outcome to a safe deal. Call it a wash and remove it from the list?

The list goes on, and perhaps I'll respond to the rest of it later if asked to, but from what I am reading in your posts in this thread, it seems that you're disappointed that Gainey doesn't fleece other GM's more often? Or that he doesn't make more big moves with assets of poor value?

Have you compared Gainey's safe track record to that of the other GMs in the league? I'd reckon every GM has a list of safe trades just as long as Gainey's. Every team makes boring transactions every season. They can't all be dynamic. Why bog down your argument with "Quintal for future considerations"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money was an object in Kovy's case, because a) NYR wanted to dump his contract, b) nobody still wanted to aquire Kovy and the remaning of his contract and c) nobody wanted to give something for Kovy with the intent of re-signing him came the summer. Nobody except us.

Really, Quebecois, give it up.

I'm with Q60 on this one, the two trades were very different. The Rangers primary goal wasn't to dump Kovalev's contract, which was up at the end of the season. The Rangers were a non-playoff team trying to get something of value for an expiring contract. That's the type of deal playoff GMs are looking for every year - deals that help the team during the playoff run and don't put them on the hook for bad contracts. Every year you see guys in Kovalev's situation get traded at the deadline. Bill Guerin, Doug Weight, and Mark Recchi have had it happen to them multiple times. Gomez, on the other hand, was an anchor, a supposedly immovable contract. Unlike Kovalev, he wasn't the type of player any GM is looking for. He had many years left on a bad contract. Before the lockout, the only way contract like that got moved was if the team agreed to pay part of his salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Q60 on this one, the two trades were very different. The Rangers primary goal wasn't to dump Kovalev's contract, which was up at the end of the season. The Rangers were a non-playoff team trying to get something of value for an expiring contract. That's the type of deal playoff GMs are looking for every year - deals that help the team during the playoff run and don't put them on the hook for bad contracts. Every year you see guys in Kovalev's situation get traded at the deadline. Bill Guerin, Doug Weight, and Mark Recchi have had it happen to them multiple times. Gomez, on the other hand, was an anchor, a supposedly immovable contract. Unlike Kovalev, he wasn't the type of player any GM is looking for. He had many years left on a bad contract. Before the lockout, the only way contract like that got moved was if the team agreed to pay part of his salary.

As much as I hate to admit it ..... I agree with Fanny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so your position is that everybody who can be traded should be? interesting but you need to have 2 people to agree to a trade. we have no idea if there were, are partners for these trades. Trades simply aren't that simple in the cap era.

Are you trying to imply that there was no trade market for Souray, Streit and Komisarek?

It's not like I said they could have dealt Smolinski in his UFA season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you trying to imply that there was no trade market for Souray, Streit and Komisarek?

It's not like I said they could have dealt Smolinski in his UFA season.

the question is, was the value for them worth writing off the playoffs, and I for one doubt it. As i recall bob said at the time the offers they got for Souray were simply not enough to say we aren't going to make the playoffs. So he kept him. I am really not sure what the difference is between keeping your ufa and trying to sign him, as opposed to trading for a ufa at the deadline and then hope you can sign him. In these cases Bob decided the ufa he had was better than anything coming in. making trades just for the sake of making trades is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all these types of posts end up being an argument over how and why Bob does things. I think he just likes to make us crazy and he succeeds. Halak if a fine up and coming goalie, he wants to play and he knows the odds are not good in montreal. I would really like to get that big centre we have wanted for a number of years. I think we all agree on that. We will have to give up more than halak but there are some k's that might do the trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how the 2 picks for Tanguay is a sideway/downgrade. We were clearly making a run.

Same with the 2nd for Lang. That's an upgrade.

And given the ratio (4 upgrades to 14 sideways/downgrade, without the ones I or Trizz dispute), how does he fare against other GMs?

GMs are paid to make safe moves to improve their team. I don't understand how it's used against Bob. Call me a homer if you want, but I defend the guy because I can see reason in just about every move he's made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark my words... we will live to regret this... 'nuff said...

We'll be fine, it's all good. I look at it positively, we've drafted and developed two good young goalies. Price is the unanimous choice for having the most upside. Also, I don't think Bob is in a rush to make a trade. Maybe he's just trying to gauge interest in Halak. As I've already posted, I don't feel he's worth all that much, I hope I'm wrong on that.

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...