Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33

Recommended Posts

From Bruce Garrioch of the Ottawa Sun:

Montreal Canadiens GM Marc Bergevin isn't done making changes. We're told he'd move LW Erik Cole if he could find a taker for his $4.5-million cap hit through 2014-15. Here's an idea: Call the Carolina Hurricanes.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/02/23/calgary-flames-captain-jarome-iginla-might-be-tough-to-move

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is as bad as or worse then Eklund. He does his own speculation and passes it off as rumours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rangers could use him right about now.

If they offrered up their #1 pick and a prospect, I'd make the move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Cole is 'tough to move' strikes me as ridiculous. Yeah, teams have zero interest in a 35-goal power forward because he's having a slow start. Yeah, right.

Garrioch is an idiot and he's right for the wrong reason. Cole is tough to move because he has a NTC.

Also, Columbus has the Rangers first round pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garrioch is an idiot and he's right for the wrong reason. Cole is tough to move because he has a NTC.

Also, Columbus has the Rangers first round pick.

maybe he could go to columbus (ok nobody WANTS to go there) and we could get their first rounder, love that idea. Just dreaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is as bad as or worse then Eklund. He does his own speculation and passes it off as rumours.

I know, I didn't try to pass it off as a credible rumour. It was just something that didn't involve a certain unsigned Colorado centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cole has a no trade clause. Cole came here because he wanted to play for the Habs, he is a fan. Cole likes the team. Cole doesn't want to be traded and won't be going anywhere. Why is there all this talk when we are on top of the standings? You guys seem to want to do more dealing than my son does on his PS2. Honestly, the chemistry is right, we are having success. Don't mess with it. Maybe as a buyer come deadline, but otherwise stop trying to screw things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cole has a no trade clause. Cole came here because he wanted to play for the Habs, he is a fan. Cole likes the team. Cole doesn't want to be traded and won't be going anywhere. Why is there all this talk when we are on top of the standings? You guys seem to want to do more dealing than my son does on his PS2. Honestly, the chemistry is right, we are having success. Don't mess with it. Maybe as a buyer come deadline, but otherwise stop trying to screw things up.

Well, moving Cole would be an 'asset management' kind of deal - moving an aging player before his decline begins hurting you, hopefully to get back high picks or quality prospects that could help us for years to come. If the team is winning despite his playing medicore hockey, then it might be possible to move him without it being considered a 'tank' move.

I'm in no great hurry to ship him out, though. My guess is that by year's end he'll be back to the beast he was last year, and we'll all be saying how vital he'll be to our playoff drive.

It'd be hard to get him to waive his NTC, though, if we remain close to the top of the standings. It'll be hard to say, 'hey Eric, we're trading you to a contender' when most teams are actually doing worse than you! :B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize he had a full NTC. Well for better or worse he is probably here until he retires. I liked the signing, but hated the term. I think when we offer extra $ and term then anyone else, we really shouldn't also be giving NTC as part of those deals.

Well, moving Cole would be an 'asset management' kind of deal - moving an aging player before his decline begins hurting you, hopefully to get back high picks or quality prospects that could help us for years to come. If the team is winning despite his playing medicore hockey, then it might be possible to move him without it being considered a 'tank' move.

I'm in no great hurry to ship him out, though. My guess is that by year's end he'll be back to the beast he was last year, and we'll all be saying how vital he'll be to our playoff drive.

It'd be hard to get him to waive his NTC, though, if we remain close to the top of the standings. It'll be hard to say, 'hey Eric, we're trading you to a contender' when most teams are actually doing worse than you! :B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize he had a full NTC. Well for better or worse he is probably here until he retires. I liked the signing, but hated the term. I think when we offer extra $ and term then anyone else, we really shouldn't also be giving NTC as part of those deals.

The term was dodgy, but it's too soon to tell how dodgy exactly. If he gives us one poor season out of four, for instance, I'd consider that an acceptable return on investment. We'll never know whether he would have signed here without the NTC, but that's the game you play when you're going after UFAs - you're gonna overpay one way or the other. It's not like his cap hit is crippling, so provided he continues to round into form, I say, don't worry, be happy on the Cole file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize he had a full NTC. Well for better or worse he is probably here until he retires. I liked the signing, but hated the term. I think when we offer extra $ and term then anyone else, we really shouldn't also be giving NTC as part of those deals.

You always have to factor in the taxes. Brandon Prust pointed out that when you include taxes, Nashville was offering him more money than Montreal. So NTCs are Montreal's way of sweetening a deal. Plus most players who take long term deals plan to buy houses and raise families in the area for that time and trades hurt that. It prevents situations like in Philly and Ottawa where recently signed players just get immediately dealt for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get why players want NTC, but a team should only be giving term , $ and NTC to their core of 2 to 4 players. Otherwise you have to get them to prioritize and sacrifice from these three components.

I had read that we were the only ones offering Prust 4 years.

In the case of Gionta and Cole we offered more $ and term then anyone else.

You always have to factor in the taxes. Brandon Prust pointed out that when you include taxes, Nashville was offering him more money than Montreal. So NTCs are Montreal's way of sweetening a deal. Plus most players who take long term deals plan to buy houses and raise families in the area for that time and trades hurt that. It prevents situations like in Philly and Ottawa where recently signed players just get immediately dealt for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get why players want NTC, but a team should only be giving term , $ and NTC to their core of 2 to 4 players. Otherwise you have to get them to prioritize and sacrifice from these three components.

I had read that we were the only ones offering Prust 4 years.

In the case of Gionta and Cole we offered more $ and term then anyone else.

We may have offered more years but not more money when you break the taxes down.

Outbidding also means offering the best perks and that's the NTC. If Montreal is offering Cole $4.5M per season without an NTC while say Carolina offers $4M with an NTC he might go ahead and take the NTC because he wants the stability and the ability to choose where he goes. Players are a lot more careful with this stuff after the Havlat sign and trade in Ottawa. Rarely does a big contract get handed out anymore without an NTC or NMC. Other big UFA signings with an NTC/NMC:

- Ilya Bryzgalov (NMC)

- Danny Briere (NMC)

- Brad Richards (NMC)

- Zach Parise (NMC)

- Ryan Suter (NMC)

Just because you offer the most money doesn't mean you won't have to also give them some form of assurance that you won't just dump them after one bad season to Phoenix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading cole is not the answer he is what we need big body that hits and skates well with hands. I for one have been bitching about him as well but over the last couple of games he is starting to come around. The eric cole of last year was awesome and when he plays like he did last game goes to the net good things happen. Question is how far away form a cup team do you guys thing we are? Getting younger is great but it is hard to win when your too young, look at the oilers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get why players want NTC, but a team should only be giving term , $ and NTC to their core of 2 to 4 players. Otherwise you have to get them to prioritize and sacrifice from these three components.

I had read that we were the only ones offering Prust 4 years.

In the case of Gionta and Cole we offered more $ and term then anyone else.

And that's why they signed here.

I think we can exaggerate the badness of these contracts. The exaggeration seems to be predicated on the idea that declining returns at the tail end of the deal cancel out all the good things a player brought over its total span. Prust will be 33 when his deal expires. It's not as though we've signed him 'til age 40. Now, I think he is the type of guy whose body will start to break down early, so it's quite possible that by age 33 he will be an injury-riddled shadow if his former (awesome) self. But that won't make it a bad contract necessarily. It'll mean we got, say, 3 terrific years and one mediocre one. I don"t know about you, but I'd rather have vintage Prust for three years, and one bad one, than not have him at all. Which is, presumably, the other option.

Same thing with Cole. Let's assume he finds his game this season, as he's showing signs of doing. That'll give us two seasons in which he has been worth every dime of his contract and more. If he 'brings it' again next year, we'll be three for four. What's the problem? Even if he is a dog in Year Four, weren't we better off signing him than not?

It boils down to whether you want these players in the CH or not. If you do, then it's well worth taking a risk that they are worn out at the back end of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Cole is 'tough to move' strikes me as ridiculous. Yeah, teams have zero interest in a 35-goal power forward because he's having a slow start. Yeah, right.

But does he have any interest in leaving the Canadiens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm worried that we may lose Subban at some point because of MT.

A moot point now!

I just hope I don't hear at some point that he left because of a conflict with Therrien. :angry::angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't, I'm sure the RDS crowd will.

That's OK, the fans will tell themselves it's an awesome move somehow. :rolleyes: Think of the cap savings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd better sign off these boards...the more I think about the Cole deal, the more disconcerted I become. Trading a major power forward for an impending UFA and a middling pick? Man, Cole had better be washed up.

If MT had anything to do with it, meanwhile, then we basically traded Cole for Michel Therrien and a third-rounder. I was irritated enough at JM costing us Sergei Kostitsyn. Cole would then become yet another case of the Habs dumping assets to please coaches who inevitably turn out to be gonzo a year or two later.

Gonna hit the sack, maybe I'll be less alarmed come morning.

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...