illWill Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Rumours out of New Jersey are that the Devils offered a second round pick and a prospect for Brian Gionta but it was turned down, either because Gionta refused to waive his no trade clause or because Montreal preferred to keep him. Out of the mix they traded for Tuomo Ruutu instead. It's a tough rumour to swallow because at that point New Jersey wasn't given their first round pick back and with Ruutu they ended up sending a conditional third in 2017 for him. Also Montreal is thin on the right wing as it is and moving Gionta would mean either playing a left handed player like Galchenyuk or Eller on the right wing or moving Briere or Bourque into a permanent right wing spot in the top six. If I was to wager a guess, New Jersey offered Loktikonov and a conditional second rounder in 2017 and either Bergevin said no or Gionta said no. I'm glad that it didn't go through. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l<OV4L3V Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I'm glad that it didn't go through. are you still content it didn't go through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Rumours out of New Jersey are that the Devils offered a second round pick and a prospect for Brian Gionta but it was turned down, either because Gionta refused to waive his no trade clause or because Montreal preferred to keep him. Out of the mix they traded for Tuomo Ruutu instead. It's a tough rumour to swallow because at that point New Jersey wasn't given their first round pick back and with Ruutu they ended up sending a conditional third in 2017 for him. Also Montreal is thin on the right wing as it is and moving Gionta would mean either playing a left handed player like Galchenyuk or Eller on the right wing or moving Briere or Bourque into a permanent right wing spot in the top six. If I was to wager a guess, New Jersey offered Loktikonov and a conditional second rounder in 2017 and either Bergevin said no or Gionta said no. If MT said no, he must have been nuts. I can't see it being a 2017 second rounder - that's 4 years away! We have too many players. Gionta and Bourque should have been dumped. We should call up Snow again in the summer, i can't think of anyone else dumb enough to take Bourque. THis summer, we should also look at moving Moen - we have way too many bodies. There is healthy competition and there is our current situation once Bournival is healthy, we have Weise, Bournival, Moen, Prust, White, Parros, Eller, Gionta, Bourque, all of whom belong on the 3rd and 4th lines. Of these guys I think only Bournival and Eller have the potential to be 2nd liners - I hate that Gionta seems to be glued to Pleks, in the same way that Maxpac is glued to DD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 are you still content it didn't go through? yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 THis summer, we should also look at moving Moen - we have way too many bodies. There is healthy competition and there is our current situation once Bournival is healthy, we have Weise, Bournival, Moen, Prust, White, Parros, Eller, Gionta, Bourque, all of whom belong on the 3rd and 4th lines.Of these guys I think only Bournival and Eller have the potential to be 2nd liners - I hate that Gionta seems to be glued to Pleks Agreed! We have too many players who are similar. I believe that we shouldn't resign Gionta, Parros, Bouillon, Murray, Weaver. Let them all go as they will become UFA as of July 1. If at all possible, try to trade Bourque and Brière. I would be willing to give up a 3rd round pick for someone else to pick up Bourque. Addition by subtraction. He's completely useless and brings nothing to the team. Meanwhile, It's not that I hate Brière, but we have enough smurfs on this team. With Gionta gone and Brière hopefully traded away, we would be left with Plex, Desharnais and Gally as our smallish forwards. I find that three small forwards is more that enough...we don't need any more! in the same way that Maxpac is glued to DD. You have got to be the only person in the world right now asking to have those two split up. They are perfect for each other and both are producing quite nicely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Agreed! We have too many players who are similar. I believe that we shouldn't resign Gionta, Parros, Bouillon, Murray, Weaver. Let them all go as they will become UFA as of July 1. If at all possible, try to trade Bourque and Brière. I would be willing to give up a 3rd round pick for someone else to pick up Bourque. Addition by subtraction. He's completely useless and brings nothing to the team. Meanwhile, It's not that I hate Brière, but we have enough smurfs on this team. With Gionta gone and Brière hopefully traded away, we would be left with Plex, Desharnais and Gally as our smallish forwards. I find that three small forwards is more that enough...we don't need any more! You have got to be the only person in the world right now asking to have those two split up. They are perfect for each other and both are producing quite nicely! Frankly, i'd move DD in the summer. The only smurf i'd keep is Gallagher. If we have Galchenyuk, Plex and DD as our top 3. I don't want DD playing 18 minutes a game, which is what he's going to get if he's playing with MaxPac. If plex is also playing 18-20 minutes that is going to mean Galchenyuk will continue to get between 14 to 16 minutes. Our top two lines should be getting close to 20 minutes. We are not going to be a dominating team if DD is getting those type of minutes. He may get 55 to 65 points like he did when we finished 28th in the league, but we are not going to be a top team if DD is one our top 2 centres. WIth him producing he is movable. I'd say adios to DD, Moen, Gionta, Briere, Bourque, Parros, Bouillon, Weaver and Gorges this summer. DD and Gorges if packaged together should get us a decent dman or better option for a top 6 forward. i wonder if the two of them with a prospect can get us a guy like Myers out of Buffalo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bostonhabs Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Frankly, i'd move DD in the summer. The only smurf i'd keep is Gallagher. If we have Galchenyuk, Plex and DD as our top 3. I don't want DD playing 18 minutes a game, which is what he's going to get if he's playing with MaxPac. If plex is also playing 18-20 minutes that is going to mean Galchenyuk will continue to get between 14 to 16 minutes. Our top two lines should be getting close to 20 minutes. We are not going to be a dominating team if DD is getting those type of minutes. He may get 55 to 65 points like he did when we finished 28th in the league, but we are not going to be a top team if DD is one our top 2 centres. WIth him producing he is movable. I'd say adios to DD, Moen, Gionta, Briere, Bourque, Parros, Bouillon, Weaver and Gorges this summer. DD and Gorges if packaged together should get us a decent dman or better option for a top 6 forward. i wonder if the two of them with a prospect can get us a guy like Myers out of Buffalo. I agree with you we need to improve but what team doesnt need or want too? We lack offence and you want to dump a hard worker that does put up pts and doesnt cost us an arm or leg. PLUS max pac wants and likes playing with him. What team doesnt want a big c man that can put up points and what team is trading them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I was never a big fan of DD but he has been producing very nicely and since he and max have such a strong relationship no point to splitting them up. Gionta should have been gone. We won't get more if any for him. He probably walks for free now. I agree most of those guys can go. Some like weaver are simply depth players, cheap and usefull at times. Moen could go, we have better players to take his spot. Weisse for instance. No one will take Briere or Bourque, Boullion is finished retire already. Parros won't be re-signed. Gorges should be traded but we should get a decent return may have to add a prospect to get something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 If MT said no, he must have been nuts. I can't see it being a 2017 second rounder - that's 4 years away! That's the thing though. The Devils know they are middle road with a lot of aging veterans and they can't keep giving away draft picks. They are sending a conditional in 2017 for Ruutu. It's likely that was the offer for Gionta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I don't want Loktionov. I watched him play in Manchester, he's garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 There's a rumour making the rounds that Jason Pominville wants Vanek to sign in Montreal so he could then ask to be traded to Montreal. Pom hates Montreal. It's supposedly from a "family source" so people are buying it. What a crock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 If Pominville wanted to go to Montreal so badly, he probably wouldn't have signed a 5 year extension last offseason (that hasn't kicked in yet) and instead just chose to sign with the Habs in July. It's wishful thinking being passed off as supposed inside info. It's funny how many people are buying it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 If Pominville wanted to go to Montreal so badly, he probably wouldn't have signed a 5 year extension last offseason (that hasn't kicked in yet) and instead just chose to sign with the Habs in July. It's wishful thinking being passed off as supposed inside info. It's funny how many people are buying it though. There are also rumors out there, about expansion. History would suggest a waiver draft. Might want to figure out what you are left with before you start adding and subtracting. I think the timing for expansion is ripe in the next two years. Owners love free money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Expansion would also decrease each team's share of the TV deals. It would make a lot more sense for the league to relocate a couple of their POS franchises to hockey markets, but of course that's out of the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Expansion would also decrease each team's share of the TV deals. It would make a lot more sense for the league to relocate a couple of their POS franchises to hockey markets, but of course that's out of the question. Expansion will come. All four major North American leagues will have at least 32 teams in the next 10 years. So will relocation. The NHL worked pretty fast to relocate Atlanta to Winnipeg when they lost confidence in it. There's talk that Florida will be the next to relocate and that won't be the only sports team in the state of Florida packing soon (Tampa Bay Rays are quietly being discussed for relocation in baseball). People think NHL refuses to relocate because of the Phoenix situation but that has had a lot of special factors involved. As for "hockey markets", it's more complicated than that. The NHL could have six teams in Toronto but that isn't going to grow the game. You need to expand your audience outside of your comfort zone. You need new fans every year. Also, the NHL likes having some teams doing poorly financially. It allows them to argue for their CBA adjustments. If every team was doing great, the NHL as a collective of owners would have to bend to the NHLPA demands. That's also why the players won their strike in 92 and won most of their concessions from the 95 lockout. Today, the NHL needs to always say in one side of their mouth that everything is great and on the other side of their mouth say that the players make too much and that even with a hard salary cap that the league can't survive without adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Relocation was fast in Winnepeg because they already had an arena, and an owner who was willing to overpay as well as jump through all the league's hoops. Balsillie took a brash approach and the league slapped him down for it in a transparent power move. I don't know what else has to happen in Phoenix for the league to lose confidence there - it's at least as bad as the Atlanta situation pre-move. As for 'growing the game', it surely takes a back seat to the bottom line, and there are better ways of doing it than having franchises losing tens of millions per year with empty arenas and no local attention, let alone support. It strikes me more as the league's stubbornness and internal politicking rather than any coherent plan for growing hockey. A second franchise in Toronto would quickly become one of the top 8 earners in the league. Heck, even a second franchise in Montreal would make money. Nate Silver had an interesting article about putting hockey teams where there are actual hockey fans: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 It's a good number crunch from Silver but with a few different puck bounces, Canada would have won the Cup between 2004 and 2007. Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa all could have won the Cup in those years. The Canucks went to game seven against the Bruins and then collapsed. That had nothing to do with the amount of Canadian teams in the league. The problem with "the odds" argument is that it ignores so many real world factors. This year it's entirely possible for only Montreal to make the playoffs. This isn't due to numbers. This is because Vancouver and Ottawa collapsed, Toronto is currently collapsing, Calgary and Edmonton are rebuilding and Winnipeg isn't there yet. With good management there's little stopping in five years for all seven Canadian teams to make the playoffs. There's bigger problems than just fans not putting owners on the hot seat. But again, the league doesn't actually want 30 teams making money. It sounds ridiculous but too much success puts the power back in the players. Think back to 2004. Imagine if after the NHL folded from a 92 strike and a 95 lockout that all 30 teams were financially successful. Do you think we'd have a salary cap or that the NHL would be free-wheeling? It would be free-wheeling. And don't mention the cap in the NFL. That was due to an ugly, unfair court trial. At the last lockout, Gary Bettman took a 180 from arguing that the NHL got out of the lockout year with brilliant success to "We're not doing that great". Teams like San Jose and Ottawa came out of the woodwork claiming they weren't financially successful. Why was that? Because they needed to claim they weren't making money. Putting a bunch of teams in Toronto would only lead to the NHL game not growing and the NHL owners unable to say the league needs to adjust contracts. It's a lose/lose despite short term financial jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 At the last lockout, Gary Bettman took a 180 from arguing that the NHL got out of the lockout year with brilliant success to "We're not doing that great". Teams like San Jose and Ottawa came out of the woodwork claiming they weren't financially successful. Why was that? Because they needed to claim they weren't making money. Putting a bunch of teams in Toronto would only lead to the NHL game not growing and the NHL owners unable to say the league needs to adjust contracts. It's a lose/lose despite short term financial jump. They use those tactics during collective bargaining negotiations, but they don't actually want to eschew more money. It's not a short-term financial jump to have more teams in Toronto, it's every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Sounds like Bergevin managed to rearrange road trip a bit, so that players get 2 days off in Florida, likely would go over well with players (a hard day of golf maybe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 I heard a rumor on TSN 690 saying that Emelin, Markov and Price weren't travelling to Chicago for Wednesday's game?? If its true, i guess its as good a time to give a few of our important players a night off! Anyways, if we lose it doesn't matter, seeing as Chicago is in the western Conference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 I heard a rumor on TSN 690 saying that Emelin, Markov and Price weren't travelling to Chicago for Wednesday's game?? If its true, i guess its as good a time to give a few of our important players a night off! Anyways, if we lose it doesn't matter, seeing as Chicago is in the western Conference! There hasn't been a goalie called up from Hamilton yet and they're in St. John's. If this is true, there will be a call-up in the near future (which would be 3 out of the allowable 4). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 There hasn't been a goalie called up from Hamilton yet and they're in St. John's. If this is true, there will be a call-up in the near future (which would be 3 out of the allowable 4). They repeated the same thing again this morning on TSN 690. Except that this morning they said that only Markov and Emelin wouldn't be going to Chicago...no mention of Price... OK, Just announced on the RDS website that Price, Markov, Emelin, Murray, Prust and Moen would not be going to Chicago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 They repeated the same thing again this morning on TSN 690. Except that this morning they said that only Markov and Emelin wouldn't be going to Chicago...no mention of Price... OK, Just announced on the RDS website that Price, Markov, Emelin, Murray, Prust and Moen would not be going to Chicago! Good, smart play. Didn't Bowman used to send top Habs on vacation near end of season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Is Beaulieu going to get a game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Is Beaulieu going to get a game? Maybe tomorrow I would guess? If Emelin/Markov arnt going to Chicago. 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.