The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 5 minutes ago, tomh009 said: Holu cr@p, I had not seen them before, but the Jets' baby blue sweaters are even worse than the Habs'! 😮 To think, people get paid to design those things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Best wishes to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Anonymous NHL player poll 2024: Who’s the best player? Most overrated? Best goalie? Worst road city? - The Athletic The Athletic poll, #1 jersey has always been my favourite as well and likely a biased pick for me would be Habs 2nd best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 23 minutes ago, DON said: Anonymous NHL player poll 2024: Who’s the best player? Most overrated? Best goalie? Worst road city? - The Athletic The Athletic poll, #1 jersey has always been my favourite as well and likely a biased pick for me would be Habs 2nd best. Unlike the one above, most graphs are impossible to read ... but without (I hope) revealing too much to non-subscriber, no Habs make any of the best/worst player lists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2-2 late 3rd Go Sens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 The first Deadline Domino falls https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/flames-agree-to-trade-elias-lindholm-to-canucks/ Seems like a big return on a rental who is having a poor season, but then again the 1st will be a very late 1st; don’t know much about the prospects, but Canucks chatter doesn’t seem to see Jurmo as much good. 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 32 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: The first Deadline Domino falls https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/flames-agree-to-trade-elias-lindholm-to-canucks/ Seems like a big return on a rental who is having a poor season, but then again the 1st will be a very late 1st; don’t know much about the prospects, but Canucks chatter doesn’t seem to see Jurmo as much good. 🤷♂️ Seems like a HUGE return, bodes well for Monahan. I guess the Canucks had to unload salary with Kuzmenko and Tocchet didn't like him, but being a salary filler throw in on a deadline deal is a poor outcome for him IMO. Calgary should be able to flip him for more assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 3 hours ago, DON said: 2-2 late 3rd Go Sens nice goal by Pinto to win it in OT Jaques Martin has them playing better. Pinto made them a better club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 9 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said: nice goal by Pinto to win it in OT Jaques Martin has them playing better. Pinto made them a better club The "odds are" that you are correct ... Pinto is a good player 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 12 hours ago, Neech said: Seems like a HUGE return, bodes well for Monahan. I guess the Canucks had to unload salary with Kuzmenko and Tocchet didn't like him, but being a salary filler throw in on a deadline deal is a poor outcome for him IMO. Calgary should be able to flip him for more assets. Tocchet HATED Kuzmenko. He was nothing but dead cap space as far as the Canucks were concerned. I think that might be the key prism for understanding this deal. If you see Kuzmenko as a legit top-6 W, 30-goal scorer, then certainly the Canucks overpaid. If you see him in the way we see Josh Anderson, then the trade starts to seem pretty reasonable for the Canucks as contenders who are “going for it.” The main thing is that they did not give up their top organizational prospects. Instead they lose a good prospect, a low-grade prospect, the #30-32 overall pick, AND gain $5 mil in salary space by dumping perceived-dud Kuzmenko - in return for a rental that they think is the missing piece in solidifying their top-6, and who might become a tolerable Plan B in the disastrous event that they can’t lock down Pettersson. All that being said, if I’m a Canucks fan, I find Lindholm’s numbers at age 29 and his reputed salary demands of $8-9 million to be quite worrisome. He’s not a guy I’d want the team to sign long-term. Classic deadline deal. But yes, if this sets the market, then things do look good for Monahan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 31 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Tocchet HATED Kuzmenko. He was nothing but dead cap space as far as the Canucks were concerned. I think that might be the key prism for understanding this deal. If you see Kuzmenko as a legit top-6 W, 30-goal scorer, then certainly the Canucks overpaid. If you see him in the way we see Josh Anderson, then the trade starts to seem pretty reasonable for the Canucks as contenders who are “going for it.” The main thing is that they did not give up their top organizational prospects. Instead they lose a good prospect, a low-grade prospect, the #30-32 overall pick, AND gain $5 mil in salary space by dumping perceived-dud Kuzmenko - in return for a rental that they think is the missing piece in solidifying their top-6, and who might become a tolerable Plan B in the disastrous event that they can’t lock down Pettersson. All that being said, if I’m a Canucks fan, I find Lindholm’s numbers at age 29 and his reputed salary demands of $8-9 million to be quite worrisome. He’s not a guy I’d want the team to sign long-term. Classic deadline deal. But yes, if this sets the market, then things do look good for Monahan. It’s always great to read your perspective about the Canucks. We get the national coverage but they don’t talk much about anyone not named Toronto. I am excited that this deal surely gets us a first for Monahan and perhaps more or a top line prospect 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 47 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Tocchet HATED Kuzmenko. He was nothing but dead cap space as far as the Canucks were concerned. I think that might be the key prism for understanding this deal. If you see Kuzmenko as a legit top-6 W, 30-goal scorer, then certainly the Canucks overpaid. If you see him in the way we see Josh Anderson, then the trade starts to seem pretty reasonable for the Canucks as contenders who are “going for it.” THAT is the key to extrapolating tis deal to Monahan's value ... how did Craig Conroy value Kuzmenko ... I suspect he doesn't necessarily expect him to repeat his rookie season production, but values him as far more than "a contract I had to take to make the deal". There has also been speculation that Kuzmenko only waived his NTC because Calgary agreed to try to trade him before the deadline ... which would give an indication of how other NHL teams value him ... although that may not happen or only happen after Monahan is traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 49 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Tocchet HATED Kuzmenko. He was nothing but dead cap space as far as the Canucks were concerned. I think that might be the key prism for understanding this deal. If you see Kuzmenko as a legit top-6 W, 30-goal scorer, then certainly the Canucks overpaid. If you see him in the way we see Josh Anderson, then the trade starts to seem pretty reasonable for the Canucks as contenders who are “going for it.” The main thing is that they did not give up their top organizational prospects. Instead they lose a good prospect, a low-grade prospect, the #30-32 overall pick, AND gain $5 mil in salary space by dumping perceived-dud Kuzmenko - in return for a rental that they think is the missing piece in solidifying their top-6, and who might become a tolerable Plan B in the disastrous event that they can’t lock down Pettersson. All that being said, if I’m a Canucks fan, I find Lindholm’s numbers at age 29 and his reputed salary demands of $8-9 million to be quite worrisome. He’s not a guy I’d want the team to sign long-term. Classic deadline deal. But yes, if this sets the market, then things do look good for Monahan. HughGort has gotten good returns in trades; I did my potato-trade guessing to figure out what we may get and I was not happy with what I would come up with. Based on feedback here, Inwas looking for late 1st or high second from previous drafts for MoneyHands, then adding a cap/contract return and a prospect fro the other team. I checked DAL and SEA, kept going back to NJD due to their loss of forwards, and looked at FLA, BOS, TOR… could bot make it work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 4 hours ago, GHT120 said: how did Craig Conroy value Kuzmenko ... I suspect he doesn't necessarily expect him to repeat his rookie season production, but values him as far more than "a contract I had to take to make the deal". There has also been speculation that Kuzmenko only waived his NTC because Calgary agreed to try to trade him before the deadline ... which would give an indication of how other NHL teams value him ... although that may not happen or only happen after Monahan is traded. That info seems to be outright incorrect: "You look at his skill set and what he does on the power play and his ability to score goals from everywhere on the ice. He has great vision, especially from the tops of the circles down. I watch a lot of his shootout stuff, he's very good at the shootout," Conroy said. "He's one of those guys with high, high-end skill and he's a right shot which, especially with losing a right-handed-shot guy, you're always looking for those skilled right-handed players. So, we explained where we thought he'd fit in with our team, where we see him playing on the power play, and he was excited. He had the right to say no and we were just happy he said, 'You know what, I like what I heard, let's move forward with this, I want to be a Flame.'" I don't fully understand the trade to be honest. I'm not convinced that Lindholm is as great as some people think - especially himself and his next contract ask. Offensively it seems like Kuzmenko might be almost as good as Lindholm at finishing. It sounds like the Flames got a decent player in Kuzmenko and Van grossly undervalued him. I'm sure Lindholm will work out in Van but without any salary retention from the Flames they seem to have over paid for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 3 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said: That info seems to be outright incorrect: *** IF *** the SPECULATION is correct, what Conroy said fits perfectly with trying to get the best return in a subsequent trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Kuzmenko feels like he'll be Thomas Tatar in Calgary. The guy who was the throw in to the trade for cap reasons and cause Vancouver didn't know how to use him (at least under Tocchet) and goes on to put up about the same points as Lindholm (Pacioretty) does. Meanwhile the prospects and pick was what Calgary was really after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 11 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Tocchet HATED Kuzmenko. He was nothing but dead cap space as far as the Canucks were concerned. I think that might be the key prism for understanding this deal. If you see Kuzmenko as a legit top-6 W, 30-goal scorer, then certainly the Canucks overpaid. If you see him in the way we see Josh Anderson, then the trade starts to seem pretty reasonable for the Canucks as contenders who are “going for it.” The main thing is that they did not give up their top organizational prospects. Instead they lose a good prospect, a low-grade prospect, the #30-32 overall pick, AND gain $5 mil in salary space by dumping perceived-dud Kuzmenko - in return for a rental that they think is the missing piece in solidifying their top-6, and who might become a tolerable Plan B in the disastrous event that they can’t lock down Pettersson. All that being said, if I’m a Canucks fan, I find Lindholm’s numbers at age 29 and his reputed salary demands of $8-9 million to be quite worrisome. He’s not a guy I’d want the team to sign long-term. Classic deadline deal. But yes, if this sets the market, then things do look good for Monahan. Seems kind of crazy to see a guy with 39 goals and 74 points in his one full NHL season as Josh Anderson. Those are first line numbers that Andy has never even sniffed. Also, the first round pick will only be #29-32 if the Canucks make the conference finals. I'd get trading this haul for a future core piece, but a rental on a down year is questionable and could look pretty bad down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 hours ago, Neech said: Seems kind of crazy to see a guy with 39 goals and 74 points in his one full NHL season as Josh Anderson. Those are first line numbers that Andy has never even sniffed. Also, the first round pick will only be #29-32 if the Canucks make the conference finals. I'd get trading this haul for a future core piece, but a rental on a down year is questionable and could look pretty bad down the road. I hear you on Kuzmenko. All I’m saying is, he was not part of the plan in Vancouver, because the coach had no use for him. Hard up against the cap, and with core players due for big paydays, they needed to get out of that contract. I think what people are missing is, this trade was not about maximizing value for Kuzmenko, whose value was probably fairly indifferent on its own. It was a contender’s move to load up for the playoffs. They got the player they wanted and dumped a guy who was surplus to requirement as part of that. If Kuzmenko explodes in Calgary, I think the Canucks just shrug. “He wasn’t going to do that here.” The Anderson analogy only holds to this extent: it’s as though we traded him to a team who talks him up as a 20-goal, 40-point bulldozer (which is what he was in prior seasons). That team might be happy, but we Habs fans would just be relieved to get him off the cap. One thing about this deal, though, is that Lindholm HAS to recover his form in Vancouver and be an impact piece down the stretch. Otherwise, yes, they threw away a good prospect and a high-20s 1st for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 11 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: [...] The Anderson analogy only holds to this extent: it’s as though we traded him to a team who talks him up as a 20-goal, 40-point bulldozer (which is what he was in prior seasons). That team might be happy, but we Habs fans would just be relieved to get him off the cap. [...] you comment makes me think: I believe that MSL tends to use/cast ineffectively players not in his plan or vision for the the future, which affects their trade value. And in Anderson's case, MSL was said to be changing how he plays like he did for Gallagher last season. "On paper", without taking into account any such MSL-effect, what is the value for a "20-goal, 40-point bulldozer" ? Edited February 2 by alfredoh2009 switched animated gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 I think Anderson prior to this season would have been a tradable commodity. His value is another question. Probably a 2nd. If his contract weren’t a Marc Bergevin Special, it would probably have been a 1st. I mean, you’re a contender and you add that guy? A very nice secondary piece for your team. What this season has done is magnify all of his limitations and subtract all his pluses. He is now perceived, basically, as a faster but more confused Armia. (BTW, your point about MSL holds for most coaches, I think - especially on teams that are trying to win. They go with the guys they like and could not care less what they are doing to another guy’s trade value). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 32 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: I think Anderson prior to this season would have been a tradable commodity. His value is another question. Probably a 2nd. If his contract weren’t a Marc Bergevin Special, it would probably have been a 1st. I mean, you’re a contender and you add that guy? A very nice secondary piece for your team. What this season has done is magnify all of his limitations and subtract all his pluses. He is now perceived, basically, as a faster but more confused Armia. (BTW, your point about MSL holds for most coaches, I think - especially on teams that are trying to win. They go with the guys they like and could not care less what they are doing to another guy’s trade value). case in point Vancouver's Kuzmenko but the point I should have made more clear is how MSL has changed the way players play, some with great success (Slaf) some with cratered performance. That makes it difficult for anyone following the Habs to assess the actual value of "legacy contracts" like Anderson, Dvorak or Gallagher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 I expect, and accept, that I am in the minority and I am not teying expect to convince others ... but I see little value in Anderson. Anderson can be physical ... he averages 22 goals per 82 games, so not an elite goal scorer (that "pace" was 108-130th in the NHL last season). Excluding this season and his 26-game season, as a full-time NHLer he averages 68-69 games per season. But my issue with Anderson is that he seems to have no hockey sense ... his playmaking is absolutely pathetic (14a/82gm) and he is the "3rd wheel" on every line he plays on ... never makes anybody "better" ... basically, he is a productive, but very expensive, "energy player". As much as I hope another team might want him, unless the Habs pay to move him, or take-back an equally bad contract, I don't expect him to be traded until he is a salary-retained trade deadline rental in 26/27. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 10 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said: but the point I should have made more clear is how MSL has changed the way players play, some with great success (Slaf) some with cratered performance. That makes it difficult for anyone following the Habs to assess the actual value of "legacy contracts" like Anderson, Dvorak or Gallagher. I-M-O ... Gallagher's "descent" started before MSL took over ... and ... blaming MSL for Dvorak's lack of production is unfair; he just is what he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 30 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said: case in point Vancouver's Kuzmenko but the point I should have made more clear is how MSL has changed the way players play, some with great success (Slaf) some with cratered performance. That makes it difficult for anyone following the Habs to assess the actual value of "legacy contracts" like Anderson, Dvorak or Gallagher. The critique is powerful when it comes to Anderson specifically. MSL publicly said he was trying to change Anderson’s game - something that I don’t recall him ever saying about Dvorak or Gally. MSL seems to have looked at Josh and thought that he could unlock what could be there if the guy had any hockey sense. The problem is, he doesn’t, and never did. The result of this “Gentlemen, I can Rebuild Him” hubris was that Anderson visibly lost all self-confidence and identity as a player. His whole season has been kiboshed by what seems to be an honest attempt to change his game. But Anderson can’t change his game. He can only be Josh Anderson. In past seasons, that was good enough. But now he’s lost the thread. Who knows if he can get it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 20 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: In past seasons, that was good enough. But now he’s lost the thread. Who knows if he can get it back. In the past that was accepted ... I-M-O it was never "good enough", unless you accept him as nothing but a 3rd line 3rd wheel. 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.