Report: Kovalchuk To Montreal Or Toronto?

[DA_Champion]

As the self-proclaimed add to Mr Gainey, I know for a fact that you are all wrong. Come the new year the only outside (the org) acquisition will be a defensemen.

The team is 13th in the NHL in scoring, 8 goals behind the leader, and less games. I consider that pretty good considering they have yet to show their real potential.

I feel sorry for the Leafs on Saturday

The tems that have scored more goals than us have also played more games.

[animerules1x3]

But Trevor Timmins has never said that Ryan McDonagh is more valuable than both the Kostitsyns put together. That's the statement I object to. You're comparing two of our current roster players to a kid who has yet to play a game of pro hockey at the AHL level, let alone the NHL, and saying he'll be more valuable than them even though they play different positions. I just feel that it's almost impossible to deliver that kind of assessment, and it's certainly nothing that scouts would use in their player evaluations.

As for McDo being closer to the NHL than people think, Timmins is merely saying he won't take as long to develop as other D prospects. That doesn't mean McDo isn't still years away from the NHL, and even further away from being an impact player on our team.

You have your opinion on the matter, I have mine on the value of the Kostitsyns versus the value of McDonagh, and that is alright. I will stick to the belief that a blue-chipper D projected as a top 2 D holds more value to us than the brothers, even if I like them a lot and wouldn't trade them willingly.

As for McDonagh possibly being years away from the NHL, we won't know for sure until he hit Habs' training camp (for which he has to leave school first), and then we shall see.

For now, the only thing we can say, is that he is dominating the NCAA with an average team, and we have a weakness on D, not on the forward side. Since McDo is a blue-chipper D-man, I wouldn't trade him for anything. He is an untouchable for me.

[2VP]

The tems that have scored more goals than us have also played more games.

Thanks, but it was mentioned in my non serious reply.

[hockey_gal89]

You have your opinion on the matter, I have mine on the value of the Kostitsyns versus the value of McDonagh, and that is alright. I will stick to the belief that a blue-chipper D projected as a top 2 D holds more value to us than the brothers, even if I like them a lot and wouldn't trade them willingly.

As for McDonagh possibly being years away from the NHL, we won't know for sure until he hit Habs' training camp (for which he has to leave school first), and then we shall see.

For now, the only thing we can say, is that he is dominating the NCAA with an average team, and we have a weakness on D, not on the forward side. Since McDo is a blue-chipper D-man, I wouldn't trade him for anything. He is an untouchable for me.

I too believe MacDonaugh to be untouchable...I think a lot of these trade scenarios people present are the result of short-term "Win now" thinking...The problem with this line of thinking is that no matter who the player is (kovalchuck, Gaborik, Sundin) they don't guarantee a cup win now. If anything, bringing our own players up through our own system (Like MacDonaugh) actually gives our team a better chance to win now than say an Ilya Kovalchuck, Marian Gaborik or Mats Sundin.

[animerules1x3]

I too believe MacDonaugh to be untouchable...I think a lot of these trade scenarios people present are the result of short-term "Win now" thinking...The problem with this line of thinking is that no matter who the player is (kovalchuck, Gaborik, Sundin) they don't guarantee a cup win now. If anything, bringing our own players up through our own system (Like MacDonaugh) actually gives our team a better chance to win now than say an Ilya Kovalchuck, Marian Gaborik or Mats Sundin.

Exactly my way of thinking. Why put all our chips on one year when we have the tools to draft and develop young players well, and have four, five, six great seasons, and as many chances to go all the way ?

[Hoyle00cdn]

Just out of curiosity....if Waddell denied any rumour of shopping Kovalchuk, why is this thread still thriving?

[GreekHockeyCoach]

Just out of curiosity....if Waddell denied any rumour of shopping Kovalchuk, why is this thread still thriving?

It is because of our eternal thirst for a bonafide sniper.

[RicochetII]

Exactly my way of thinking. Why put all our chips on one year when we have the tools to draft and develop young players well, and have four, five, six great seasons, and as many chances to go all the way ?

Because this is the centennial. The Legacy wishes a Stanley Cup for its birthday. We have those chances regardless and if it doesn't appear so at a later time, we can make changes. Trading McDonagh is not the apocalypse, and if it were, taking the Cup home this year is the equivalent of going out with a bang.

I don't want to trade anybody, but there are players we need more than some we have now, to have the best possible team this year. We have until March to prepare for the playoffs. We have anywhere from 10 months to 5 years to prepare for the future.

[hockey_gal89]

It is because of our eternal thirst for a bonafide sniper.

But don't we already have snipers in the making with the Kostitsyn's and isn't Kovalev supposed to be filling that void as well?

[animerules1x3]

Because this is the centennial. The Legacy wishes a Stanley Cup for its birthday. We have those chances regardless and if it doesn't appear so at a later time, we can make changes. Trading McDonagh is not the apocalypse, and if it were, taking the Cup home this year is the equivalent of going out with a bang.

I don't want to trade anybody, but there are players we need more than some we have now, to have the best possible team this year. We have until March to prepare for the playoffs. We have anywhere from 10 months to 5 years to prepare for the future.

True, but a modest 4th D isn't going to cost the moon. Anything that costs the moon means that it is more than we really need.

Gaborik, Kovalchuk, Bowmeester, Frolov, all these guys, we don't need them. It's all luxury.

There is a way to progress without trading for a big marquee player, and losing much depth in the process.

[GreekHockeyCoach]

But don't we already have snipers in the making with the Kostitsyn's and isn't Kovalev supposed to be filling that void as well?

It depends on your definition of sniper. I define a sniper as a 50+ goal scores that makes the most of his opportunities. I'd say Kovalev is a playmaker and not a sniper, same with Sergei. Andrei can be a sniper one day but for now we don't have anyone on this team that is even close to Kovalchuk's sniping abilities.

[hockey_gal89]

It depends on your definition of sniper. I define a sniper as a 50+ goal scores that makes the most of his opportunities. I'd say Kovalev is a playmaker and not a sniper, same with Sergei. Andrei can be a sniper one day but for now we don't have anyone on this team that is even close to Kovalchuk's sniping abilities.

But see-here's the thing...I don't care if we have the best individual on our team so much as the best team PERIOD. And for my money there's only a select few teams that are better than us.

[animerules1x3]

It depends on your definition of sniper. I define a sniper as a 50+ goal scores that makes the most of his opportunities. I'd say Kovalev is a playmaker and not a sniper, same with Sergei. Andrei can be a sniper one day but for now we don't have anyone on this team that is even close to Kovalchuk's sniping abilities.

The real question, in fact, is : do we need someone who matches your definition of a sniper ?

I think not. If we had one, it'd be nice. It's a nice commodity, for sure, but not a pre-requisite for success. Depth is a pre-requisite for success, a reliable goalie is also one, and a good defense is. A 50 goals scorer doesn't mean squat if you are weak in any of those three areas.

Ovechkin and Kovalchuk would be nice in Montreal, but they aren't necessary. We can do with Kovy's 30, and Higgins, Andrei and Tanguay's 25. And with the potential 20 of guys like Koivu, and Sergei, and Plekanec, and so on.

Scoring by committee is the other option, and the one BG seems to have taken. It worked pretty well for the Red Wings, didn't it ?

[GreekHockeyCoach]

But see-here's the thing...I don't care if we have the best individual on our team so much as the best team PERIOD. And for my money there's only a select few teams that are better than us.

The real question, in fact, is : do we need someone who matches your definition of a sniper ?

I think not. If we had one, it'd be nice. It's a nice commodity, for sure, but not a pre-requisite for success. Depth is a pre-requisite for success, a reliable goalie is also one, and a good defense is. A 50 goals scorer doesn't mean squat if you are weak in any of those three areas.

Ovechkin and Kovalchuk would be nice in Montreal, but they aren't necessary. We can do with Kovy's 30, and Higgins, Andrei and Tanguay's 25. And with the potential 20 of guys like Koivu, and Sergei, and Plekanec, and so on.

Scoring by committee is the other option, and the one BG seems to have taken. It worked pretty well for the Red Wings, didn't it ?

I totally agree with both of you. Our team is great as it is and the chemistry is second to none. However, if someone did want to offer us a Kovalchuk or an Ovechkin, would we turn them down? You even answer that question for me Anete with the part I put in bold. The bottom line is, if a player like that was offered to us, we'd be stupid not to take him.

[chromedome_mtl]

I totally agree with both of you. Our team is great as it is and the chemistry is second to none. However, if someone did want to offer us a Kovalchuk or an Ovechkin, would we turn them down? You even answer that question for me Anete with the part I put in bold. The bottom line is, if a player like that was offered to us, we'd be stupid not to take him.

To finish that thought,...."if the price is right, and affordable, without sacrificing the current strength of our team"!

[GreekHockeyCoach]

To finish that thought,...."if the price is right, and affordable, without sacrificing the current strength of our team"!

Thank you CD

[animerules1x3]

To finish that thought,...."if the price is right, and affordable, without sacrificing the current strength of our team"!

I'd do such a trade, but then again, I would probably end up regretting it, as for such an advantageous trade being offered to me, the sky would have to turn yellow the next morning.

[2VP]

Just out of curiosity....if Waddell denied any rumour of shopping Kovalchuk, why is this thread still thriving?

If you look at the forum as a source of entertainment, then that's why it's here.

If you look at the forum as source, then you will never get ahead in life.

These types of posts are more for we fans to voice our opinions, and thoughts more than actual fact.

Trade rumours hardly ever happen, but sure are fun talking about them.

So having said that.

I would never trade for Kovalchuk. Too one-way dimensional, no heart, and I just don’t plain like him.

Bouwmeester on the other hand. I would take him in a heart beat. Any d-man that moves the puck such as he does, creates offence.

SO having Kovalchuk and his 60 goals would be great.

Or Bouwmeester and having 3 (all ready on the team) more 30 goal players, not including the obvious players now.

[Habcup]

True, but a modest 4th D isn't going to cost the moon. Anything that costs the moon means that it is more than we really need.

Gaborik, Kovalchuk, Bowmeester, Frolov, all these guys, we don't need them. It's all luxury.

There is a way to progress without trading for a big marquee player, and losing much depth in the process.

We can trade away some prospects and some depth. We have to many players that are ready to play in the NHL. The problem is parting with our "star" prospects. There is a need to balance the present with the future. We should not mortgage the future for the present (too much). Vice versa, we need to live in the present.

It's like money you can keep some and invest some or blow it all and have nothing for tomorrow. Except that in Hockey you want to beat the Jones.

[Bourne]

Exactly my way of thinking. Why put all our chips on one year when we have the tools to draft and develop young players well, and have four, five, six great seasons, and as many chances to go all the way ?

Fantastic, we have six great seasons yet no Stanley cups to show for it; thus our effort amounts to nothing beyond a fleeting afterthought of "Well Montreal almost made it." Correct me if I am wrong however did Toronto not attempt this strategy, making it to the playoffs five years in a row only to lose? The difference was they had little to fall back upon after having ignored their youth; however my point remains intact. Ottawa two seasons ago was the epitome of phenomenal and just a handful of seasons prior Vancouver dominated as one of the leading teams in the west. Where are they now? Despite an amazingly opportune trade which landed them Luongo, Vancouver is no further ahead, in fact they are worse and unlike Toronto you cannot fault a poor youth movement. Ottawa, well the jury is still deliberating on what happened with them.

Nonetheless allow us to assume you are correct and we ran four to six years on hopefully impressing showings without a cup. Where does that leave us?

Koivu - Retired or signed to a new team. He wants a cup, not a constant rebuilding franchise

Kovalev - Likely walked or retired

Markov - Possibly retired

Hammrlik - Possibly retired

Komisarek - He could very well walk after the conclusion of this season

Higgins - Almost guaranteed to have been traded

Price - If he is allowed to even sniff the free agency, the contracts this kid would be offered would be astronautical

Tanguay - Walked or retired

Are you suggesting we have enough rookies to maintain excellence seven years from now with absolutely no indication whatsoever if they can muster up the potential to run with whatever other teams field against us? Constantly waiting on the hope our youth will prove successful is wishful thinking and could cost us everything. We cannot predict the outcome so long into the future; hell Price could theoretically grow weary of us never quite making it to the mountain's perk and sign with another team. By then Halak would have more then likely moved to greener pastures, leaving us possibly where we were when Roy left.

Does this mean we should trade half the roster for an all star? Of course not, such was never my intention. However just as we should not trade half the roster, we cannot predict or make assumptions of how successful we may be in the future.

[animerules1x3]

Fantastic, we have six great seasons yet no Stanley cups to show for it; thus our effort amounts to nothing beyond a fleeting afterthought of "Well Montreal almost made it.

Who are you to say that we will not win over six years if we don't acquire this one or this one ? You seeing the future or something ? What I'm saying is that you can sacrifice all you want to put the best team ever put on the ice and still not win, but in the process, you limit your ability to get into a position to win again in the coming years. It is not an all-or-nothing affair in the NHL. The Penguins have learned it the hard way. Even with Gonchar and Whitney in their lineup, they still wouldn't be contenders this year, they lost a lot in their attempt to do the big flashy trade last year.

" Correct me if I am wrong however did Toronto not attempt this strategy, making it to the playoffs five years in a row only to lose? The difference was they had little to fall back upon after having ignored their youth; however my point remains intact.

The Leafs have given away their draft picks during all these years to get proven talent, and they could never win. Yet, you'd want us to do the same ? No thanks. Giving away one first rounder is okay, we see it with Tanguay, especially with the depth we have now, but giving our first, second, third rounders in a single year is just plain stupid. We should all be aware, now, for how long we were a lousy team for having years and years of bad drafting. If you don't even draft, you can't draft well, and you will pay for it soon enough.

Ottawa, well the jury is still deliberating on what happened with them.

Ottawa are where they are because they prioritized their superstars, keeping three around (a very, very deadly line), but having to sacrifice more and more and more depth to keep them. Also, they never judged a priority to have a great goaltender, and they suicided themselves in a metaphorical way, letting their supporting cast dwindle over the years. Result : they have three superstars, and they are low in the standings. Going hard after guys like Kovalchuk and Gaborik by giving our support cast will bring us there middle-term. That's the way the salary cap works. You get to have one or maybe two stars, and 5-6 good middle of the pack players, and a goalie. We have that, and don't need to repeat the Sens mistakes.

Nonetheless allow us to assume you are correct and we ran four to six years on hopefully impressing showings without a cup. Where does that leave us?

Again, don't presume we can't win a cup over 4 to 6 years of continued success. In today's NHL, it only takes one break to go through, and if you continuously maintain a good team, backed with a good goalie (unlike the Sens), you'll have your chances. And six chances is better than one, with your '' home run or bust '' strategy.

Koivu - Retired or signed to a new team. He wants a cup, not a constant rebuilding franchise We are no longer a rebuilding team because we are going for the cup. We don't need to throw away parts of our core to be considered like a 'built' team. We are ready right now, and considered by the experts a contender. No one in their right mind is calling us a rebuilding team anymore.

Kovalev - Likely walked or retired ... And replaced with Andrei Kostitsyn. We can all see this coming, Alexei is being made to groom Andy Kosty. This is not a coincidence.

Markov - Possibly retired Markov will retire at 33 or 34 ? Unlikely. He still has plenty of good hockey left, he is right in his prime.

Hamrlik - Possibly retired McDo is coming. Weber is coming. Carle is coming. Subban will be coming. Fischer is progressing. There's a reason we are proud of our depth at D, isn't it ?

Komisarek - He could very well walk after the conclusion of this season Coulda, shoulda, woulda. He could very well not walk, too. Let's cross the river when we get to the river, will you ?

Higgins - Almost guaranteed to have been traded Considering how many times he has been included in trade rumours, I'd downgrade this to : possibly. And in the event he is traded, then we'd get a player back, wouldn't we ?

Price - If he is allowed to even sniff the free agency, the contracts this kid would be offered would be astronautical He won't. Franchise players don't reach the open market. Price will get his astronautical contract from the Habs. Don't even be afraid.

Tanguay - Walked or retired He's damn old, isn't he ? Yet again, we draft for a reason.

Are you suggesting we have enough rookies to maintain excellence seven years from now with absolutely no indication whatsoever if they can muster up the potential to run with whatever other teams field against us?

As long as we don't throw our draft picks around like crazy for the flavour of the month, we very well can. The Red Wings are doing it. And Trevor Timmins has rightfully acquired his laurels by now. As long as the Habs brass don't make the same mistake the Sens did by letting him go, there's no trouble in drafting quality players.

Constantly waiting on the hope our youth will prove successful is wishful thinking and could cost us everything. We cannot predict the outcome so long into the future; hell Price could theoretically grow weary of us never quite making it to the mountain's perk and sign with another team. By then Halak would have more then likely moved to greener pastures, leaving us possibly where we were when Roy left.

So, to prevent a possible but very unlikely disaster that would require about ten defections from our current team, you want us to actually work counterclockwise, wasting our cheap'ish support players and draft picks to acquire players we don't have cap, room, and need for, all in an attempt to put us over the top ONE year, to then work from near-scratch the next ? Breaking news : the Leafs tried that. And failed. The Penguins tried that. And failed. The Red Wings tried my way and won. The Ducks tried my way and won.

Does this mean we should trade half the roster for an all star? Of course not, such was never my intention. However just as we should not trade half the roster, we cannot predict or make assumptions of how successful we may be in the future.

You are the one making the assumption that we won't be succesful in the future. Not me. Me, I'm all for stability and development, and for having the most chances to get it done, and not only one. My way, if it doesn't work this year, it still might next year, and the following one, and so on.

We cannot surrender to panic like you seem eager to do. Do you see panic in BG's eyes ? Do you not see that half our roster is made from the draft ? Do you not see that last year, we rose to success with the re-mergence of Kovalev AND the emergence of the young, drafted players ? We aren't in a position of desperation. Be patient. We need a little help on D, but then again, it is not as if we had the Flyers' D. They are the one who would need a Bouwmeester.

[jl-1]

But Trevor Timmins has never said that Ryan McDonagh is more valuable than both the Kostitsyns put together. That's the statement I object to. You're comparing two of our current roster players to a kid who has yet to play a game of pro hockey at the AHL level, let alone the NHL, and saying he'll be more valuable than them even though they play different positions. I just feel that it's almost impossible to deliver that kind of assessment, and it's certainly nothing that scouts would use in their player evaluations.

As for McDo being closer to the NHL than people think, Timmins is merely saying he won't take as long to develop as other D prospects. That doesn't mean McDo isn't still years away from the NHL, and even further away from being an impact player on our team.

I fully agree on all counts here Weep. Although McDonaugh seems to have a very bright future ahead of him, he could easily reach his peak at the AHL level as far as we know. I do trust that Timmins knows what he's talking about, but defensemen take a long time to develop in most instances. The Kostitsyn brothers (most notably Andrei) have star potential and they will be excellent players in this league for a long time. I'll wait to see McDonaugh against NHL players before proclaiming him the next Bobby Orr.

[animerules1x3]

I fully agree on all counts here Weep. Although McDonaugh seems to have a very bright future ahead of him, he could easily reach his peak at the AHL level as far as we know. I do trust that Timmins knows what he's talking about, but defensemen take a long time to develop in most instances. The Kostitsyn brothers (most notably Andrei) have star potential and they will be excellent players in this league for a long time. I'll wait to see McDonaugh against NHL players before proclaiming him the next Bobby Orr.

Well, I'd keep him in my system in the meantime, so that whether he becomes a solid top 2 D or a decent top 4 D, he stays ours

This said, I never said I WOULD trade they brothers. I said that it is what I thought it would take to land Kovalchuk, which wouldn't be my move.

However, should BG trade McDo to get him, I would be VERY disappointed.

[Bourne]

We cannot surrender to panic like you seem eager to do. Do you see panic in BG's eyes ? Do you not see that half our roster is made from the draft ? Do you not see that last year, we rose to success with the re-mergence of Kovalev AND the emergence of the young, drafted players ? We aren't in a position of desperation. Be patient. We need a little help on D, but then again, it is not as if we had the Flyers' D. They are the one who would need a Bouwmeester.

Panic? I am in no way in any sort of panic nor have I suggested we trade our entire roster; I even stated that was not my intention. Patience is something this team has been for over a decade and finally when in a position of strength the recommendation is... still "be patient." Making a pitch for someone like Kovalchuk or Bouwmeester is not going to break our franchise, condemning the Habs to mediocrity as you seem to perceive. Say we lose the Kostitsyn brother in a shocking trade for Kovalchuk; even playing the devil's advocate and we bow out of the playoffs. We are not suddenly a struggling franchise on the verge of a rebuild. Thus to compare a single to trade to five years of idiocy the Maple Leafs underwent is ludicrous.

The entire point I wished to make was trading a couple of players will not doom this team, it could very well improve it. The assumption and prediction goes either way. Furthermore Detroit may have built their team similar in that they only used the draft however do you honestly believe we compare with Detroit? They signed a wait for it... all star, one who rejected us and already had Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Rafalski, Lidstrom and so forth. They do not trade because they have absolutely no reason to. We have unproven rookies who could be fantastic, or above average. We have no idea until they hit the ice whereas a trade for say Bouwmeester, we know exactly what we are receiving.

Edit: As for Markov, he would be 35 in six years and retirement is a possibility although I will concede it would be unlikely.

[jl-1]

We cannot surrender to panic like you seem eager to do. Do you see panic in BG's eyes ? Do you not see that half our roster is made from the draft ? Do you not see that last year, we rose to success with the re-mergence of Kovalev AND the emergence of the young, drafted players ? We aren't in a position of desperation. Be patient. We need a little help on D, but then again, it is not as if we had the Flyers' D. They are the one who would need a Bouwmeester.

Did the same Gainey panic when he traded for Joe Nieuwendyk, sacrificing a young Jarome Iginla? Sometimes, it's not a move of panic, but more one to push your team over the edge in order to give them the best chance to win the ultimate prize, the Stanley Cup.