Jay Bouwmeester

[animerules1x3]

There's another mistake, thinking that we can't re-sign him... we don't know that so let's not assume.

I didn't say we can't re-sign him. I say I wouldn't tempt fate with this one. Chances are very slim since he'll get more money than Markov, a superior D-man. Gainey wouldn't pay Bouwmeester more than Markov, and even less with all the other players he has to negociate with. Our purse is going to be pretty damn slim this summer.

At least others understand it.

Think what you want on that score, but fact is that Carbo really is giving plenty of ice time to his third pairing, by choice. He could play Markov and Komisarek 25-28 mins every night, reducing Bouillon and Gorges icetime in the process. Carbonneau believes in playing everyone. If you call this *****, then you mustn't really care, since if you did, you'd have noticed by now his troops' usage.

In any case, all this discussion always was moot, since Gainey actually did his big moves this summer and stood clear from big rental rapes last yeaer in the Hossa sweepstakes. He wouldn't do something as drastic as what you daydream of.

[tmash]

Besides, the spot that need fixing is the one that was manned by Brisebois, last night. And it was used for less than 14 minutes.

No matter how you look at it, Bouwmeester would be overdoing it.

That's where I disagree, I don't think we can 'overdo it", considering I believe we will be able to give him the minutes and adding a dmen like him instantly would make us better. I guess I can't say you're wrong, since if getting a lesser player wins us a cup, Jaybo would be overkill. But I just don't feel that confident in winning a cup and think he improves our chances so much. I can kind of see your point with the price being too high, but I really don't think getting him is overdoing anything. Like Hossa last year, they gave up too much for a player that didn't bring them a cup and didn't re-sign, but I wouldn't say he was "overdoing it" for their offense.

[animerules1x3]

If a player of Bouwmeester's caliber is available and I have a shot at him, I'm a fool to reject him out of hand, and arrogant too, to think my team is so dang good that it doesn't need to improve.

Where did I say we don't need to improve ? Wasn't it the purpose of this topic to discuss the acquisition of a d-man ? Didn't I say I would pursue a 4th D-man ? Just not Bouwmeester, At this point in time, any steady 4th D-man would be an improvement over O'Byrne or Brisebois.

Declining talks with the Panthers over Bouwmeester doesn't translate in an absence of will to improve, but in the absence of will to overspend. It tanslates in saying : '' I will shop for something less pricey, because I hold to my budget. ''

That's where I disagree, I don't think we can 'overdo it", considering I believe we will be able to give him the minutes and adding a dmen like him instantly would make us better. I guess I can't say you're wrong, since if getting a lesser player wins us a cup, Jaybo would be overkill. But I just don't feel that confident in winning a cup and think he improves our chances so much. I can kind of see your point with the price being too high, but I really don't think getting him is overdoing anything. Like Hossa last year, they gave up too much for a player that didn't bring them a cup and didn't re-sign, but I wouldn't say he was "overdoing it" for their offense.

By overdoing it I was simply meaning : paying too much for the identified need. If we can get the job done with say, Ohlund, why go out and spend twice the price for Bouwmeester ? That's what I call overdoing it.

[jl-1]

I didn't say we can't re-sign him.

There...

You should know better than to ask for big-name rentals by now.

A rental is a player that you trade for that you won't on can't re-sign.

By overdoing it I was simply meaning : paying too much for the identified need. If we can get the job done with say, Ohlund, why go out and spend twice the price for Bouwmeester ? That's what I call overdoing it.

But you get what you pay for. Bouwmeester is a lot younger and has no NTC.

[fourtrax]

Where did I say we don't need to improve ? Wasn't it the purpose of this topic to discuss the acquisition of a d-man ? Didn't I say I would pursue a 4th D-man ? Just not Bouwmeester, At this point in time, any steady 4th D-man would be an improvement over O'Byrne or Brisebois.

Declining talks with the Panthers over Bouwmeester doesn't translate in an absence of will to improve, but in the absence of will to overspend. It tanslates in saying : '' I will shop for something less pricey, because I hold to my budget. ''

By overdoing it I was simply meaning : paying too much for the identified need. If we can get the job done with say, Ohlund, why go out and spend twice the price for Bouwmeester ? That's what I call overdoing it.

A lesser d-man would be an acceptable compromise if we can't get JayBo, but why limit ourselves out of hand? As I said, getting JayBo would be great insurance in case Komisarek decides to test the free-agent waters this summer. It lets us hedge our bets.

You keep saying we'd be overspending, but you have yet to provide a legitimate reason for why it would be overspending to get Bouwmeester. You feel we'd be giving up too much. Okay. I can respect your opinion, but Gainey's actions regarding Hossa last year should reassure all of us that he isn't going to sell the farm and do something crazy just to get Bouwmeester. He had an offer for Hossa on the table, but then Pittsburgh came in and upped the ante. Gainey said thanks but no thanks. Gainey is Gainey, he'll pay what he thinks is fair and nothing more.

As for Ohlund, I doubt Vancouver will trade any of their D with the blueline injuries they have.

[animerules1x3]

A rental is a player that you trade for that you won't on can't re-sign.

But you get what you pay for. Bouwmeester is a lot younger and has no NTC.

Indeed. But he can just as well walk. I won't take such a chance if I'm Bob Gainey, especially since we aren't actually desperate for a huge D-man.

A rental is also and foremost a mercenary. A player you acquire late in a season, and who has no connection to your city or team.

Komisarek has better chances to re-sign here than Bouwmeester would, and I'm not even talking of their different-to-be salaries.

Komisarek played the beginning of his career here, on the team that drafted him high, and with his buddy Higgy. He fully knows just how well we love him, and Gainey trust him as a known commodity on the ice. Komisarek has ties to Montreal wereas Bouwmeester has none at all. If I was to but my bet on one of the two to re-sign here come summertime, its Komisarek, thus making Bouwmeester a rental.

[animerules1x3]

A lesser d-man would be an acceptable compromise if we can't get JayBo, but why limit ourselves out of hand? As I said, getting JayBo would be great insurance in case Komisarek decides to test the free-agent waters this summer. It lets us hedge our bets.

You keep saying we'd be overspending, but you have yet to provide a legitimate reason for why it would be overspending to get Bouwmeester. You feel we'd be giving up too much. Okay. I can respect your opinion, but Gainey's actions regarding Hossa last year should reassure all of us that he isn't going to sell the farm and do something crazy just to get Bouwmeester. He had an offer for Hossa on the table, but then Pittsburgh came in and upped the ante. Gainey said thanks but no thanks. Gainey is Gainey, he'll pay what he thinks is fair and nothing more.

As for Ohlund, I doubt Vancouver will trade any of their D with the blueline injuries they have.

I said Ohlund as I could've said Leopold, or Koistinen. I don't crave on one particular D-man like others seem to, with Bouwmeester. What I care for - and that should come as no surprise to any of you by now - is that we pay the right price, and don't screw ourselves up in the near future as another GM recently did. Besides, come the deadline, injuries on the Canucks' blue line might not be a problem anymore, and it is said that Ohlund's talks with the organization have stalled.

Why do I say that by acquiring Bouwmeester we would be overspending ? I already said it before : because the GM who shop the rental player has the big part of the bat, he's the one fielding many offers, and making the bids go up. He'll take on the best offer, and if plenty of teams try to get Bouwmeester, the best offer will be very high. If the Habs end up making the best offer, then they would overspend.

But as I said earlier, too, I have confidence in Bob Gainey, that he wouldn't pull the trigger on this deal. He did remove himself from the Hossa sweepstakes, last season, letting Shero give up his lungs and liver to get him. I believe he would do so again.

A weaker team with more cap space and more NHL-ready young assets to give than a 25 yo forward will gets the pot.

So this whole debate, from my point of view has always been a debate for fun, because it has no chance of going down in real life.

[tmash]

A rental is a player that you trade for that you won't on can't re-sign.

Rental player is generally applied to any player you trade for at or just before the deadline for a cup run who is a UFA that summer. Whether or not you'll manage to re-sign him in the future is kind of irrelevant. We call players rentals at the deadline all the time without knowing if they will re-sign or not. Unless we are 100% sure he'll sign, he's technically a rental until proven otherwise.

But you get what you pay for. Bouwmeester is a lot younger and has no NTC.

Which I agree with, but I get his point that if we could get the job done without giving as much up, that is the correct move to make. I guess the reasoning I see in Ante's posts are, these arguments could be made for any player, that they make us instantly better and such, yet we can't go out and get all of them (it would deplete the farm). Now in JayBo's case, I think we should do it, but there are certainly valid arguments against it (and quite frankly, if there is a trade we all agree with, chances are the other team is getting ripped off).

[jl-1]

Indeed. But he can just as well walk. I won't take such a chance if I'm Bob Gainey, especially since we aren't actually desperate for a huge D-man.

A rental is also and foremost a mercenary. A player you acquire late in a season, and who has no connection to your city or team.

Komisarek has better chances to re-sign here than Bouwmeester would, and I'm not even talking of their different-to-be salaries.

Komisarek played the beginning of his career here, on the team that drafted him high, and with his buddy Higgy. He fully knows just how well we love him, and Gainey trust him as a known commodity on the ice. Komisarek has ties to Montreal wereas Bouwmeester has none at all. If I was to but my bet on one of the two to re-sign here come summertime, its Komisarek, thus making Bouwmeester a rental.

That's not my definition of a rental. When you rent something, you're left with nothing at the end. If he re-signs, he's not a rental and that's why I'm saying that you're jumping the gun in calling him a rental. How many players have connections to a city BEFORE a trade? You're right, very few. But once they play in that city, they can chose if it is for them or not. Bouwmeester is Canadian. He's used to hockey in Canada (although not highly relevant, I'll admit).

Also, let's not kid ourselves. UFA's go where the money is yes, but they will take less to play on a team that has a chance at the ultimate goal, the Stanley Cup and we are now a contender.

[animerules1x3]

Rental player is generally applied to any player you trade for at or just before the deadline for a cup run who is a UFA that summer. Whether or not you'll manage to re-sign him in the future is kind of irrelevant. We call players rentals at the deadline all the time without knowing if they will re-sign or not. Unless we are 100% sure he'll sign, he's technically a rental until proven otherwise.

Which I agree with, but I get his point that if we could get the job done without giving as much up, that is the correct move to make. I guess the reasoning I see in Ante's posts are, these arguments could be made for any player, that they make us instantly better and such, yet we can't go out and get all of them (it would deplete the farm). Now in JayBo's case, I think we should do it, but there are certainly valid arguments against it (and quite frankly, if there is a trade we all agree with, chances are the other team is getting ripped off).

You are very right on this one. How about Halak, Ryder and a 2nd ?

[flames4eva]

Barring a player such as Markov or Hamrlik wishing to waive a NTC... there is currently no room for Bouwmeester IMO. Unless of course you are willing to pay 5.5 million to play Hamrlik on the third line pairing. It doesn't seem to make much sense right now.

A top-four right-hand shot d-man is what would make sense.

[animerules1x3]

Also, let's not kid ourselves. UFA's go where the money is yes, but they will take less to play on a team that has a chance at the ultimate goal, the Stanley Cup and we are now a contender.

Not all players are like that. See how surprised everyone were when Hossa signed for less to have such a chance with the Wings ? It's because it's very rare that player will take less. In Jaybo's case, I wouldn't count on it, since he is going to be one of the very more sought-after D-men in the summer, thus making him choose between a very, very high salary or a solid discount to play with a team he most probably don't care for.

Barring a player such as Markov or Hamrlik wishing to waive a NTC... there is currently no room for Bouwmeester IMO. Unless of course you are willing to pay 5.5 million to play Hamrlik on the third line pairing. It doesn't seem to make much sense right now.

A top-four right-hand shot d-man is what would make sense.

Amen.

[jl-1]

Barring a player such as Markov or Hamrlik wishing to waive a NTC... there is currently no room for Bouwmeester IMO. Unless of course you are willing to pay 5.5 million to play Hamrlik on the third line pairing. It doesn't seem to make much sense right now.

A top-four right-hand shot d-man is what would make sense.

While I agree that a right handed defenseman would be preferable, it is far from being a deal killer when someone with Bouwmeester's skills becomes available. Gorges is left handed playing on the right side, Streit was left handed also playing on the right side. There is no doubt in my mind that one of Hamrlik or Bouwmeester could play right D. I'm not sure about the NTC comment as on the proposal that I made, we would keep both of them.

[risteenhuis]

The discussion over the past few days is interesting.

I think that Bouwmeester would be the best acquisition for Montreal. Lots of teams would like to trade for Bouwmeester. Most teams IMHO would prefer to go after Bouwmeester at the trade deadline when only 25% of his salary is counts against the salary cap. Therefore why not try to trade for Bouwmeester now instead of competiting with 4 other teams for him at the trade deadline.

The Panthers would have to take on salary to make the deal happen now. The Panthers would only take on salary at the trade deadline for players they want on the roster.

Bouwmeester to Montreal. And a large chuck of his $4.875 million salary as only around 12 games have been played.

Higgins (RFA), Latendresse (RFA), one roster D in Gorges, one D prospect from Carle, Subban or Fischer, one forward prospect from D'Agostini or Lehoux, and 1st round draft pick. Bouillon or Dandenault for salary cap reasons would also go to Florida. Initial discussions could be O'Byrne and 2nd round pick but I would guess that Florida would "force" BG to send Gorges and 1st round pick to make the deal happen.

I actually don't care if there is a contract extension with the package. If Bouwmeester likes Montreal and a real chance at the Stanley Cup he will re-sign with Montreal.

Bouwmeester would be our best or 2nd best defenceman. Bouwmeester logs huge ice time. Very good at both ends of the ice. Our PP would be as good as it was when Souray was blasting shots two seasons ago for our PP.

[jl-1]

I think that Bouwmeester would be the best acquisition for Montreal. Lots of teams would like to trade for Bouwmeester. Most teams IMHO would prefer to go after Bouwmeester at the trade deadline when only 25% of his salary is counts against the salary cap. Therefore why not try to trade for Bouwmeester now instead of competiting with 4 other teams for him at the trade deadline.

The Panthers would have to take on salary to make the deal happen now. The Panthers would only take on salary at the trade deadline for players they want on the roster.

Bouwmeester to Montreal. And a large chuck of his $4.875 million salary as only around 12 games have been played.

Although I fully agree that on paper, this is the way it should work, rumours have been circulating that Jacques Martin wants to salvage this season and not wait (not counting the distractions) and get a good return now for him. Agreed that he'd likely get more at the deadline, but the Panthers might be out of playoffs' contention by then. If he can trade and get in return players that can improve his team now, he would apparently be willing to listen. So for us waiting at the deadline, he may just not be available by then.

[jl-1]

Another point for the good guys is when I saw Hamrlik injure his shoulder last night. He's a game time decision for tonight but what if something happens to him or Markov? Who steps in? Bouwmeester gives us that much needed presence out there that if you lose one, you still have three (and I'm not even counting Komo in there).

[animerules1x3]

Another point for the good guys is when I saw Hamrlik injure his shoulder last night. He's a game time decision for tonight but what if something happens to him or Markov? Who steps in? Bouwmeester gives us that much needed presence out there that if you lose one, you still have three (and I'm not even counting Komo in there).

Let's cross the river when we reach the bridge, will we ?

Or we could make a pitch and acquire Khabibulin to be ready in case Price goes down long term ?

[Contreal-Manadiens]

Let's cross the river when we reach the bridge, will we ?

But then we're dealing from a position of weakness and desperation. What if that injury happens after the trade-deadline, what do we do then?

Or we could make a pitch and acquire Khabibulin to be ready in case Price goes down long term ?

Not necessary, we still have Halak and Denis (who has been on fire so far). If we improve our defense significantly (with the addition of JayBo), Price's injury wouldn't be AS drastic.

[animerules1x3]

But then we're dealing from a position of weakness and desperation. What if that injury happens after the trade-deadline, what do we do then?

And what if we acquire Bouwmeester and HE gets injured ?

Any player can get injured, when it happens, you deal with it the best you can. It makes no sense to buy a ferrari in case your audi or viper goes down.

If your audi or viper goes down, then you can think to buy a ferrari.

But then we're dealing from a position of weakness and desperation. What if that injury happens after the trade-deadline, what do we do then?

Not necessary, we still have Halak and Denis (who has been on fire so far). If we improve our defense significantly (with the addition of JayBo), Price's injury wouldn't be AS drastic.

If we keep our offense strong, then our defensive woes aren't as drastic. Where do you want to go with that ?

You want a 4th D-man, get one. Jaybo isn't the only one available, and he's the most expensive solution.

[Contreal-Manadiens]

And what if we acquire Bouwmeester and HE gets injured ?

Any player can get injured, when it happens, you deal with it the best you can. It makes no sense to buy a ferrari in case your audi or viper goes down.

If your audi or viper goes down, then you can think to buy a ferrari.

Or you can take the bus while it gets repaired.

Nobody can fill in for Markov if he gets injured. If JayBo would get injured, so be it.... at least we still have Markov.

[animerules1x3]

Or you can take the bus while it gets repaired.

Nobody can fill in for Markov if he gets injured. If JayBo would get injured, so be it.... at least we still have Markov.

But then, we don't have Higgins and whatever other asset we gave away for a player we initally acquired in case of injury. Makes perfect sense

Seriously, why do people want a plaster made of gold when they can get one of tissue

If nobody can fill in for Markov, then it doesn't make sense to justify the acquisition of Jaybo by saying '' if Markov gets injured... ''

If we get injuries after the deadline, we're screwed no matter the position. Its the case for every team in the NHL. If Lidstrom gets injured, then the Red Wings can pretty much kiss the cup bye bye.

We'd have to recall players from the farm, like every other team.

Don't even be surprised if the Devils decide to hang out with Weekes in Brodeur's absence.

[fourtrax]

Let's cross the river when we reach the bridge, will we ?

Good GMs don't wait for bad things to happen, they plan for injury scenarios proactively.

Or we could make a pitch and acquire Khabibulin to be ready in case Price goes down long term ?

Completely irrelevant.

1. Goalies are far less likely to sustain serious injuries.
2. Khabibulin's contract is ridiculously inflated for a goalie on the downside of his career.
3. We have Halak and Denis for short-term injury relief.
4. Goalies are far easier to acquire than stud defensemen, who are incredibly rare and sought-after commodities.

[animerules1x3]

Good GMs don't wait for bad things to happen, they plan for injury scenarios proactively.

But then again, good GMs don't overpay either especially not when the need hasn't yet arisen.

[animerules1x3]

Completely irrelevant...not

1. Goalies are far less likely to sustain serious injuries. Nonsense.
2. Khabibulin's contract is ridiculously inflated for a goalie on the downside of his career. Doesn't matter, if need arise. But those when there is no need.
3. We have Halak and Denis for short-term injury relief. On D, we have Weber, Brisebois, O'Byrne, Carle, Belle, and so on for short-term injury-relief. No matter what if we get injured at one position, we are going to suffer a drop with the replacement. That is inevitable.
4. Goalies are far easier to acquire than stud defensemen, who are incredibly rare and sought-after commodities. Thus very, very expensive. Nuff said.

This is the last time I say it : the only two reasons that justify to overpay for a player are :

- Critical need. Ex : a team doesn't actually have a 2nd D, so they are justified in overpaying to get one.

- Impatience and/or lack of faith in its team. Ex : Shero.

As for me, case closed. I'm tired of this conversation. You want Bouwmeester, I won't change your mind no matter what my arguments are, and vice-versa.

It was fun for a while but this is it as long as I am concerned.

[jl-1]

But then we're dealing from a position of weakness and desperation. What if that injury happens after the trade-deadline, what do we do then?

Not necessary, we still have Halak and Denis (who has been on fire so far). If we improve our defense significantly (with the addition of JayBo), Price's injury wouldn't be AS drastic.

Good GMs don't wait for bad things to happen, they plan for injury scenarios proactively.

Completely irrelevant.

1. Goalies are far less likely to sustain serious injuries.
2. Khabibulin's contract is ridiculously inflated for a goalie on the downside of his career.
3. We have Halak and Denis for short-term injury relief.
4. Goalies are far easier to acquire than stud defensemen, who are incredibly rare and sought-after commodities.

Thank you, you both beat me to the punch!

But then again, good GMs don't overpay either especially not when the need hasn't yet arisen.

Here we go with the overpayment again.