macneil wrote:

---

theo for bert  = salary , maybe throw in a tidbit ribs for 1 of minnys goalies , they are both unresticted after the year so we would have to work something out first . sunny to phoenix for nedved to play num.2 center  any of these seem realistic to you people . saks between kovy and bert would be unreal ryder and zed  centered by nedved would be a good 2nd line  

---

sorry but theo for bert A) is a dumb trade.... Ribs for a back-up goalie is ripping us off. Like him or not he has been consistantly scoring the past 2 seasons..want to trade a player away for a back-up...trade Zed. Ribs you can get alot more for. Here just plain and simple

WE DONT NEED TO TRADE OUR GOALIE!!!! WE ARENT GOING TO TRADE OUR GOALIE!! Theodore is and will be our goalie for the next couple years....and chances are he will be re-signed after that. For lesser amount of money hopefully...unless he ups his play a big time over the rest of his contract....and STAYS playing at that level. I dont know what your obsession with Bertuzzi is because this isnt the first time you've brought up Theo for Bertuzzi. But heres a question for you. What sense is there in trading for Bertuzzi sending one of the leagues best goalies away and then replacing him with a back up from minnesota??? Theo will win 100x more games for you than bertuzzi will. And if your not content with an elite goalie playing mediocre but your okay with a mediocre goalie playing decent at best and occasionally have an outstanding game? In the NHL. sadly, players are paid according to their past play. Right now theo isnt worth half of what he is making. BUT we do know he can regularly play at that level because thats how he earned his contract. And he is a great goalie in pressure games...which is when we need him most... in the play-offs.  IF the habs win a game in this decade it WILL be with Theo in net. i guess what im trying to say is trading theo away...even for bertuzzi is a step back in trying to get a cup. Instead of trading a piece away we will have to replace again later on ( and a very hard one at that ) why not trade away a few players....say Zednik Sundstrom and a draft pick for bert....sounds much better to me....this also makes room for guys like Chipchura and Latendress to come up in the upcoming years.

brooklynhabfan wrote:

---

Nil d wrote: shrewd drafting. Brook, your avatar is quite amazing!  However, I feel you are too early with the sinking ship predictions.  The Habs are 17-11 and still in the hunt for a playoff berth.  They just need to get the horses healthy again. How about a revamped avatar showing the ship being raised again, like the Mary Ellen Carter of Stan Rogers fame?   We went down this November in the third year of Bob's reign. The skipper wasn't trading and the goalie's groin was strained. Too bad Garon is gone as he was dealt away you know left the Merry Montrealers sitting low. There was just the five guys left now and the rest were night-to-night and the AHL can't save us 'cause the Bulldogs have no bite And the groan all gave as we went down it caused us to proclaim That the Merry Montrealers’d rise again. Well, the owners hacked and coughed, not a nickel would they spend. "She gave a hundred years of service, boys, and met her sorry end. but skyboxes paid the most for us, so let them rest below", We laughed at this and said Ribs had to go. But we talked of them all winter, some days around the clock, With And-o bashing Koivu, and Barry hating Bonk. And with every hab fan that hit the bar we swore we would remain And watch the Merry Montrealers rise again.

---

Quite possibly the best post ever!  Brilliant!

davidb wrote:

---

Thats what I said in an earlier post   Why would a team trade for someone elses problems anyway 

---

I line up with David and Brook.  You have to work with the players you have, not the ones you wish you had.  Aside from proving that the Habs franchise seems to work as a farm team for the rest of the league, swapping one set of journeymen for another gets us nowhere.

So how about this:  if we're going to be treated to poor performance night after night, and since the probability of winning any given game is lowered as a result, why not bring up younger talent from Hamilton and let the loafers ride the bus for a while?  I would rather watch an ambitious kid work his tail off and learn from his mistakes than sit in front of the tube cussing out the millionaires.  And that brings me full circle to the motivational issue, and a chance for me to "wake up" a sleeping dog - namely, the CBA.

I have never understood why players' contracts and salaries aren't more peformance based.  Here's one way to think about it.  If you are a forward, base salary = $650,000. if production is from x to x+ points = +$100,000; x+ to x++ points = (get my drift?) Variables for +-, save%, shots on goal, faceoff percentage, etc.

Maybe all this would do is keep a whole new army of statisticians busy, but in the end I see no reason why performance can't be measured like it is in any other business.  Otherwise we continue to pay for the hope of performance, instead of actual contribution.

Trapper John wrote:

---

I have never understood why players' contracts and salaries aren't more peformance based.  Here's one way to think about it.  If you are a forward, base salary = $650,000. if production is from x to x+ points = +$100,000; x+ to x++ points = (get my drift?) Variables for +-, save%, shots on goal, faceoff percentage, etc. Maybe all this would do is keep a whole new army of statisticians busy, but in the end I see no reason why performance can't be measured like it is in any other business.  Otherwise we continue to pay for the hope of performance, instead of actual contribution.  

---

The reason contracts aren't more performance based is that for one, players wouldn't sign them, as they are an insult for most players.  Secondly, performance bonuses tend to make players drive for individual stats and hockey is a team game.  Even if a guy is paid extra for every blocked shot, he could be taking himself out of the play to block shots that don't really need to be blocked or opening up passing lanes by constanly going for a block.  As for team bonuses, there are always some for playoff success and sometimes for divisional success.

And Brook!  Keep her coming dude!

Habtastic

Nil d wrote:

---

Brilliant again!  You'll have to tell us how you put those things together (and why you have so much free time on your hands!).

---

barry33 wrote:

---

what we need is a pic of BG, CJ, and Rick Green in a hair club for men ad lol

---

Habtastic wrote:

---

Trapper John wrote: I have never understood why players' contracts and salaries aren't more peformance based.  Here's one way to think about it.  If you are a forward, base salary = $650,000. if production is from x to x+ points = +$100,000; x+ to x++ points = (get my drift?) Variables for +-, save%, shots on goal, faceoff percentage, etc. Maybe all this would do is keep a whole new army of statisticians busy, but in the end I see no reason why performance can't be measured like it is in any other business.  Otherwise we continue to pay for the hope of performance, instead of actual contribution.   The reason contracts aren't more performance based is that for one, players wouldn't sign them, as they are an insult for most players.  Secondly, performance bonuses tend to make players drive for individual stats and hockey is a team game.  Even if a guy is paid extra for every blocked shot, he could be taking himself out of the play to block shots that don't really need to be blocked or opening up passing lanes by constanly going for a block.  As for team bonuses, there are always some for playoff success and sometimes for divisional success. And Brook!  Keep her coming dude! Habtastic

---