I love how he's trying to judge the Habs on losing a player or two for nothing when his team just lost their first pairing dman in a situation directly created by a trade for their overpaid second pairing dman.
- prock

Can you even begin to explain how these two things are related? Nope? Okay then.

Can you even begin to explain how these two things are related? Nope? Okay then.
- khawk

Asset management. Isn't that what you're criticizing? I mean, you can't consider it good asset management to trade for a horribly overpaid dman, with a No Movement Clause, when you can only protect 3, and you have 3 that you'd like to protect already?

I mean, Methot was basically, as you put it, "lost for nothing".

Apparently you also don't understand negotiations... which doesn't seem all that surprising.

They only offered Radulov the same contract AFTER Dallas negotiated the terms and made the contract offer. That means the Canadiens were low-balling right up to the point that another team actually offered him what he wanted. They had literally MONTHS to negotiate an extension with Radulov and failed to come to terms. Meanwhile, they traded for Drouin in mid-June and signed him to a full extension a full two weeks before Radulov actually became a UFA.

So yeah... go tell me again about how "impossible" it would have been for them to have re-signed Radulov. Also, I never said they should have kept Emelin... but I'll just have to throw that on the pile of misinterpretations you've been making this entire time.
- khawk

Cool story.
Tell me.
What was it like in the room during negotiation. Tense?
What kind of outfits were they wearing? Business casual, straight casual?

I assume you know the answers as you were clearly a part of the process.

Asset management. Isn't that what you're criticizing? I mean, you can't consider it good asset management to trade for a horribly overpaid dman, with a No Movement Clause, when you can only protect 3, and you have 3 that you'd like to protect already?
I mean, Methot was basically, as you put it, "lost for nothing".
- prock

When did I say that the Phaneuf/Methot situation was an example of good asset management?

I assume you know the answers as you were clearly a part of the process.
- mlindsay

Honestly, just say that Bergevin wanted Drouin instead of Radulov, and was willing to offer up Sergachev and a 2nd two weeks ahead of the free agency deadline day to make that happen. I don't think that's such a great decision... you apparently disagree. That's okay, and so be it... but don't go trying to claim that Radulov leaving was "inevitable" to justify your perspective, because signing Radulov and keeping those assets was a perfectly viable alternative with a minimal difference in salary cap impact.

Honestly, just say that Bergevin wanted Drouin instead of Radulov, and was willing to offer up Sergachev and a 2nd two weeks ahead of the free agency deadline day to make that happen. I don't think that's such a great decision... you apparently disagree. That's okay, and so be it... but don't go trying to claim that Radulov leaving was "inevitable" to justify your perspective, because signing Radulov and keeping those assets was a perfectly viable alternative with a minimal difference in salary cap impact.
- khawk

OK...
so... getting Drouin when they did was only possible because the Lightning needed to move him in order to protect others in the Expansion draft... so 2 weeks later... the price would have likely gone up. The Habs, clearly, still had hopes to keep Radulov as well, as evidenced by their offer being the same as the Stars. They had to match what others were willing to pay, reluctantly, as they have to contend with the cap, and therefore prior to the Stars upping the ante they were unable to meet his demands. So in the end... it was inevitable after landing another offensive threat.
In your scenario, waiting 2 weeks to trade for Drouin... they likely don't get Drouin... and Radulov could have still walked as other teams had more available cap.

When did I say that the Phaneuf/Methot situation was an example of good asset management?
- khawk

well, two posts ago you were all riled up about the idea that the two situations could possibly be similar.

you can't really think it would be smart to trade Markov and radulov while heading into the playoffs as the top team in the division. so if I'm hearing you, you're entire argument rests on the idea that they should have re-signed them.

is that about right?

Honestly, just say that Bergevin wanted Drouin instead of Radulov, and was willing to offer up Sergachev and a 2nd two weeks ahead of the free agency deadline day to make that happen. I don't think that's such a great decision... you apparently disagree. That's okay, and so be it... but don't go trying to claim that Radulov leaving was "inevitable" to justify your perspective, because signing Radulov and keeping those assets was a perfectly viable alternative with a minimal difference in salary cap impact.
- khawk

Drouin and Radulov are not related. They made the Drouin deal because Tampa had to trade him and got him at a good deal to take advantage of the situatio . A center would have been much better but not possible. They tried for Radulov and were not able to get him. Signing a player his age long term has risks. Either way a young Drouin is a huge upgrade long term over Radulov.

well, two posts ago you were all riled up about the idea that the two situations could possibly be similar.
- prock

Are you sure you're actually reading my posts? I'd really like to know how you came to this conclusion.

you can't really think it would be smart to trade Markov and radulov while heading into the playoffs as the top team in the division. so if I'm hearing you, you're entire argument rests on the idea that they should have re-signed them.
is that about right?
- prock

So after all of this back and forth, you're seriously just now figuring out that my point was that I don't think they should have let Radulov and Markov walk as free agents? Unbelievable.

Are you sure you're actually reading my posts? I'd really like to know how you came to this conclusion.


So after all of this back and forth, you're seriously just now figuring out that my point was that I don't think they should have let Radulov and Markov walk as free agents? Unbelievable.
- khawk

it's Prock, what do you expect! It takes him a long time to figure things out!

Are you sure you're actually reading my posts? I'd really like to know how you came to this conclusion.


So after all of this back and forth, you're seriously just now figuring out that my point was that I don't think they should have let Radulov and Markov walk as free agents? Unbelievable.
- khawk

Well, then you should probably take a little time to think things through a little more. Players go to free agency to get the best contract. The team they were on in the past, may not be in the position to give them the best contract they can get.

And if your point is about re-signing them, you should not be phrasing that as letting them walk for nothing, because that implies a trade scenario. As just about everyone assumed. Smarten up.