Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BigTed3

2013-2014 Habs Rumors

791 posts in this topic

Yea but whenever someone comes to the Habs they never maintain the points they had with their previous team .

See : Gomez, Scott; Briere, Danny; Cole, Eric; Bourque, Rene....................

Eric Cole had a career year in his only season with us.

The other three were already in obvious steep declines in their careers that we chose to ignore. :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote " maintain "

Hs 2nd year here was a bust and we got rid of him

Actually, you wrote " maintain the points they had with their previous team " thus the confusion ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah and according to Eklund (i know, i know) we werent in on Parenteau, we were actually trying to work out a deal for O'Reilly. (Col, pitched PA instead).

Now, depending upon what we had to give up, that (O'Reilly) makes a lot more sense.

Well, I'd have to doubt Rene Bourque alone is going to nab us Ryan O'Rielly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Reilly would've been a good pick up for the habs, but understand why Colorado aren't keen on parting with him.

He's been a big part of their success this season, he plays a grinding/2-way game that creates ice for his linemates.

RB would bring speed and a solid defensive game to Colorado, along with experience. But RB is 30 (or pushing 30) and O'Reilly is younger (22 years old).

He's actually doing well with the Avs, think he's up around 30-40 points in 50 odd games.

So RB for OReilly doesn't make sense from the Avs side.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RB would bring speed and a solid defensive game to Colorado, along with experience. But RB is 30 (or pushing 30) and O'Reilly is younger (22 years old).

Actually, RB is 32 already & obviously unlikely to get more physical as he get older. If we're worried about his contract now, he'll be 34 before its over.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, RB is 32 already & obviously unlikely to get more physical as he get older. If we're worried about his contract now, he'll be 34 before its over.

Some players can play well into their mid 30's. The injuries are adding up for RB, think he may be an early retiree, right around the age of 35-36 or even sooner if he continues to deal with injuries.

All the more reason why Avs wouldn't trade OReilly for RB. We'd have to throw in a prospect I'd think.

I'm not holding my breath with bourny, saw him play for Montreal Jr's. Maybe the Avs would be willing to take him back?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Actually you wrote maintain the points they had with their previous team "

Interpret what I wrote however you wish , there are not many guys that get traded here and become offensive juggernaut's

Look at Mr Gomez , some on here ;) kept having this feeling that he was still good for 70 points .

As for PA he 'll just eb another 3 rd , 4 th liner which we have plenty of

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea but whenever someone comes to the Habs they never maintain the points they had with their previous team .

See : Gomez, Scott; Briere, Danny; Cole, Eric; Bourque, Rene....................

Alex Kovalev put up 84 points here, the second highest point total of his career and better than he had done with the Rangers before we acquired him.

I could also turn that argument around and point out that older players who had left here had their production tail off with their new teams: Saku Koivu, Richard Zednik, Sheldon Souray, Roman Hamrlik, Brian Savage, Shayne Corson, Guy Carboneau to cite a few examples. It's eally the nature of the beast when you're talking about guys later in their careers that they're production is going to naturally take a fall at some point. As others have pointed out, Cole had a career year here and Briere, Gomez, Kaberle, etc really fit into a category of player where they were past their prime when we acquired them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpret what I wrote however you wish

Nobody is "interpreting" anything, just requoting what you said.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have " sneaking suspicion " you are " interpreting " what I wrote in correctly

Yes , some players we trade for come here and do well , but the majority never do and never maintan their production .

They come here and for whatever reason this organizations stifles their creativity .

I could list guys who came here did well but I could list even more who we had high expectaions for and they never lived up to them

Disect and Interpret that anyway you want my friend.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have " sneaking suspicion " you are " interpreting " what I wrote in correctly

Yes , some players we trade for come here and do well , but the majority never do and never maintan their production .

They come here and for whatever reason this organizations stifles their creativity .

I could list guys who came here did well but I could list even more who we had high expectaions for and they never lived up to them

Disect and Interpret that anyway you want my friend.

But what he's saying is that it doesn't have to do with the organization "stifling creativity" (not arguing whether they do or not) but more that it's the type of player that's been targeted...past their prime.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fourth Period says the Blues are shopping Stewart. I wouldn't mind getting him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fourth Period says the Blues are shopping Stewart. I wouldn't mind getting him.

The price and cap hit would be a little steep, IMO.

Stewart, 26, has one-year left on his contract, beyond this season, which comes with a $4.15 million salary cap hit. The Blues had dangled Stewart last season, but came up empty.
In 54 games with the Blues so far this season, Stewart has collected 15 goals and 11 assists for 26 points.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a lot if he plays like he did last season or his sophomore season or the season he was traded to the Blues. So he's had three great seasons and two bad ones on his career(not counting his rookie season). And his contract ends after next year anyways. And because this season is one of his bad ones he probably won't cost too much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Stewart can develop into a Nathan Horton type of player. He's a guy I have interest in as well and I've been saying so for two years. He's streaky, no doubt, but at worst I think he'd be like a Rene Bourque in his Calgary years (20 goal seasons)... depends on asking price.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Stewart can develop into a Nathan Horton type of player. He's a guy I have interest in as well and I've been saying so for two years. He's streaky, no doubt, but at worst I think he'd be like a Rene Bourque in his Calgary years (20 goal seasons)... depends on asking price.

Yeah, Id have interest in Stewart, to be sure. That said, I am not positive what the blues would want from us though.

To me the players we are most likely shopping are: Bourque (confirmed), Briere (Rumoured), Gionta (suspected) and possibly someone like Markov if we cant get a deal struck with him before the deadline (not that I want to move him).

I guess its possible that a team like the blues want a proven playoff performer like Briere, but I almost cant see MB moving Danny before we even give him a shot in our own playoffs...

After telling the media we are shopping bourque, i find it highly unlikely he plays with us past March deadline. The others, could go either way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely go in for Stewart. If St. Louis is willing to be reasonable, at least. They're in "win now"ode, so I can't imagine picks/prospects would be at risk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fourth Period mentions Habs' interest in Boyes and Kulikov from Florida.

Boyes I don't mind, he would be 3rd in Goals and 7th or 8th in points on our roster right now. Would be a rental.

Think Kulikov would work for us? (Especially if we end up letting Markov go)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kulikov's interesting but I don't know if I see the fit. I can understand moving Markov for him if there doesn't seem to be a chance of resigning Markov, but the Panthers aren't really in a position to move good players for rentals.

Maybe there's an Emelin-Kulikov swap in the works or something? I just don't get why we'd be adding a D-man a week after moving Diaz who's in the Kulikov ballpark to make room for Beaulieu.

Edited by Noob616
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kulikov could work for us, but ONLY if we do end up letting Markov go. He;s yet another left shot d man but has decent size at 6'1 196. Has some offensive upside to help replace Markov..

Fourth Period mentions Habs' interest in Boyes and Kulikov from Florida.

Boyes I don't mind, he would be 3rd in Goals and 7th or 8th in points on our roster right now. Would be a rental.

Think Kulikov would work for us? (Especially if we end up letting Markov go)

I posten in the Markov thread that rumours are surfacing on Twitter today that Markov is looking for a 4-5 year term. Not saying that it is true, but IF is IS, I'd lok to move him for the best possible package. I would then probably look at Kulikov.

Edited by BreakAwayGoal13
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kulikov's interesting but I don't know if I see the fit. I can understand moving Markov for him if there doesn't seem to be a chance of resigning Markov, but the Panthers aren't really in a position to move good players for rentals.

Maybe there's an Emelin-Kulikov swap in the works or something? I just don't get why we'd be adding a D-man a week after moving Diaz who's in the Kulikov ballpark to make room for Beaulieu.

Not suggesting we trade Markov to Florida, just that we acquire Kulikov to replace Markov if he isn't staying in Montreal.

Kulikov is only 23 and RFA, in his 5th NHL season, and a player we could invest in long term. He still has a lot of room for potential growth. Diaz was 28, so if you consider them similar now, imagine Kulikov with 5 more years of experience.

I think Kulikov could work for us, but ONLY if we do end up letting Markov go. He;s yet another left shot d man but has decent size at 6'1 196. Has some offensive upside to help replace Markov..

I posten in the Markov thread that rumours are surfacing on Twitter today that Markov is looking for a 4-5 year term. Not saying that it is true, but IF is IS, I'd lok to move him for the best possible package. I would then probably look at Kulikov.

I would move Markov if the term gets too lengthy as well, especially if the salary doesn't come down substantially in such a deal.

Kulikov would give us an offensive D-man option for each pairing, and another PP capable D-man.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually wouldn't mind a four year deal for Markov if he takes a big pay cut like 4mil. But given what a guy like Streit got, who Markov is definitely better than, I wouldn't expect it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking to Florida ,I hope we are getting one of the following players. Barkov,Bjugstad,or Huberdeau

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Markov looking at a 4-5 year deal at the age of 35, I say trade him for assets.

If we are talking to Florida ,I hope we are getting one of the following players. Barkov,Bjugstad,or Huberdeau

A rebuilding team won't trade their best youngsters unless you're offering Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Beaulieu.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posten in the Markov thread that rumours are surfacing on Twitter today that Markov is looking for a 4-5 year term. Not saying that it is true, but IF is IS, I'd lok to move him for the best possible package. I would then probably look at Kulikov.

Thing is though, term + cap is the key.

If markov is looking for a series of 1 year deals at or around league value, then for sure we sign him. If he's looking for a 2 or 3 year deal for less than market value, I think you still try to resign him.

If he's looking for a 4 or 5 year deal because he wants the security of a long term contract, I dont necessarily move him: I say that that security comes with a price...being closer to $2.5m per. If he's ok with that, then I sign him. Obviously Im not signing him at $5m per for 5 years (total cap $25m) but if its 2 years at $5m (total cap $10m) vs. 5 years at $2.5m (total cap $12.5m) then Im ok with the latter too. you're basically front-loading a 5 year deal (which you cant do any more) and giving Markie the security of playing in one city until he retires.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.