[Trade] Bouwmeester to Blues for conditional 2013 1st, Cundari and goaltender Reto Berra

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Since this thread is already OT.




http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1995e.html


I always found the 1995 draft interesting. There seems to be a whole lot of nothing and a lot of run-of -the-mill players. The 1st round had a lot of players that made the NHL, but few stars. Almost all the picks were "busts" or disappointing, but some homeruns in there too. Any time teams load up on 1sts, I can't help but worry that it will be another 1995.


From what I recall, Langkow was considered by a lot of people to be the best bet at #1, but then he slipped to #5. In the end, he is the best of all the players picked in the top 5 and probably the best player from the 1st round aside from Iginla. Other notables from that draft were Doan, Savard and Kipper.


I think this draft sticks out to me because it was the 1st time that I actually started following prospects and reading up on drafts beforehand.

In general, most drafts are bad compared to 2003.

Even after certain prospects lapse, other GM's still take the risk that there might still be something worth the risk.

Langkow, Iginla, Guiguere, Gauthier, Boucher and Elomo were all Flames. (Jay McKee was offered to Daryl Sutter, by Darcy Regier, in the Drury trade, but Sutter insisted on Rhett Warrener.)

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

1997 was supposed to be the deepest draft since 1979.

The leadup was definitely hyped. Thornton & Samsonov were very big deals. Quebec goalies were all the rage, and Luongo was first and foremost. Even our pal, Jokinen, was supposed to be a #1 center. This myth continued through several years of his NHL career, even convincing Daryl Sutter and the crew at TSN that he was the man to feed Iginla those sweet gimmes.

Originally Posted by FAN

I don't think 1997 was ever considered a deep draft but had high quality players at the top. It was one of those dream drafts where you had a big franchise center as the consensus #1 pick (Thornton), a franchise center available at #2 (Marleau), a top European center (Jokinen), and a franchise goalie (Luongo). The only thing missing was a franchise defenseman, although Brewer came pretty close as a prospect.

Brewer was considered top 2 pairing when drafted, no? By the time he got to Edmonton, he was a source of mockery on this board, because Kevin Lowe used his influence to get him selected to Team Canada for the '02 Olympics.

Too add, Hossa must've been a known quantity. Lots of press coverage on his ETC.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

The leadup was definitely hyped. Thornton & Samsonov were very big deals. Quebec goalies were all the rage, and Luongo was first and foremost. Even our pal, Jokinen, was supposed to be a #1 center. This myth continued through several years of his NHL career, even convincing Daryl Sutter and the crew at TSN that he was the man to feed Iginla those sweet gimmes.

There was no myth about Jokinen. For a time, he WAS clearly a #1 center on the majority of teams. It took him a few years in the NHL to become one, and he dropped off afterwards, but he definitely was a 'bonifide #1 center' for a stretch.

2005/2006, Olli was the 7th best center in the NHL (and third in goals). Those are #1 Center numbers to me.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...ewName=summary

The following season he was the 6th highest scoring center in the league (and 2nd in goals scored).
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...ewName=summary

Olli was definitely a #1 center for a portion of his career. Even his last year in Calgary, he was the 19th highest scoring center. That still makes him a '#1 center'.

I think Jokinen was an 'elite' #1 center for a few years in the NHL, and a few years sprinkled with "decent" #1 center. He was definitely a #1 center statistically for a number of years in his career. There was no 'myth' about that.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

There was no myth about Jokinen. For a time, he WAS clearly a #1 center on the majority of teams. It took him a few years in the NHL to become one, and he dropped off afterwards, but he definitely was a 'bonifide #1 center' for a stretch.

2005/2006, Olli was the 7th best center in the NHL (and third in goals). Those are #1 Center numbers to me.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...ewName=summary

The following season he was the 6th highest scoring center in the league (and 2nd in goals scored).
http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...ewName=summary

Olli was definitely a #1 center for a portion of his career. Even his last year in Calgary, he was the 19th highest scoring center. That still makes him a '#1 center'.

I think Jokinen was an 'elite' #1 center for a few years in the NHL, and a few years sprinkled with "decent" #1 center. He was definitely a #1 center statistically for a number of years in his career. There was no 'myth' about that.

"#1 Center" with ample PP time, on a non-contending team, is not the same. Once more, he was with 6 different organizations, that did not make the playoffs. Too much to be coincidence. What's the difference here between him and Andrew Cassels?

Then he was given the opportunity to be a top line center with one of the top players in the world. Isn't it interesting that his production declined when he became a Flame? For the first time in Calgary, he got back to over 20 goals after that debacle Rangers trade, when the Flames were really starting to blow.

In over a 15 year professional career, he's never demonstrated the ability to elevate his play when the game matters with the exception of international play for Finland. Like Boumeester, and to a lesser extent, Huselius, the Flames were never going to win with these players. Maybe spending winters in South Florida softens them up. Who knows? Whatever the case, there are 3 examples of ex-Panthers, who given important responsiblities to help improve the team, but did not perform to the best of their abilities.

So, you, too, can rationalize .7 PPG all you want, but Jokinen never delivered when it mattered most (and mostly never was in such a position). In baseball, Greg Maddux was asked about statistics. His response was that the only one that mattered was "Does your team win when you pitch?" The same principle applies here. A "#1 Center" or a "#1 D-man" on a supposedly contending team should be enough to put them over the top, shouldn't they? If you disagree, why is that a lesser skilled role player, like Mike Keane, was able to contribute to winning with different franchises? Could it be that he possessed certain attributes, probably acquired in Montreal, that those ex-Panthers never did?

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

"#1 Center" with ample PP time, on a non-contending team, is not the same. Once more, he was with 6 different organizations, that did not make the playoffs. Too much to be coincidence. What's the difference here between him and Andrew Cassels?

Then he was given the opportunity to be a top line center with one of the top players in the world. Isn't it interesting that his production declined when he became a Flame? For the first time in Calgary, he got back to over 20 goals after that debacle Rangers trade, when the Flames were really starting to blow.

In over a 15 year professional career, he's never demonstrated the ability to elevate his play when the game matters with the exception of international play for Finland. Like Boumeester, and to a lesser extent, Huselius, the Flames were never going to win with these players. Maybe spending winters in South Florida softens them up. Who knows? Whatever the case, there are 3 examples of ex-Panthers, who given important responsiblities to help improve the team, but did not perform to the best of their abilities.

So, you, too, can rationalize .7 PPG all you want, but Jokinen never delivered when it mattered most (and mostly never was in such a position). In baseball, Greg Maddux was asked about statistics. His response was that the only one that mattered was "Does your team win when you pitch?" The same principle applies here. A "#1 Center" or a "#1 D-man" on a supposedly contending team should be enough to put them over the top, shouldn't they? If you disagree, why is that a lesser skilled role player, like Mike Keane, was able to contribute to winning with different franchises? Could it be that he possessed certain attributes, probably acquired in Montreal, that those ex-Panthers never did?

Players don't just score nearly back to back 90 point seasons by just being on a bad team. Olli was an elite #1 centreman for a very short time, but it did exist.
I also remember him being one of the only players who showed up against Chicago in 2009.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

Interesting. In this type of situation doesn't the club that acquires a player with a NMC have the option to not honor it moving forward? If that's the case St Louis might get a better return than they gave up if they move him in the off-season, just by virtue of having more clubs competing for his services.

normally the NTC doesn't go away if you waive it for a trade. There's a video on NHL.com about the Gaborik trade call, and you can see Gaborik's waiver form in that ... LINK (you can see it at 0:53). It says "After said trade occurs, the no-trade provision remains in full effect." So if that's a standard procedure, STL would need him to waive as well if they want to move him.

[FAN]

I believe the rule is that the NTC/NMC follows the player in a trade. The only exception is when a player is traded before the NTC goes into effect, in which case the acquiring team can choose whether to honour the NTC or not. The latter situation was what Visnovky went to arbitration for.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I have no idea if this is correct or not - but I remember reading some (mis)information that said the clauses are either retained or not at the will of the franchise the player is moving to. Not sure if that is (or was) true or not, but the organization the player went to got to choose to retain the clauses or not.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I have no idea if this is correct or not - but I remember reading some (mis)information that said the clauses are either retained or not at the will of the franchise the player is moving to. Not sure if that is (or was) true or not, but the organization the player went to got to choose to retain the clauses or not.

Would make sense, after all the player and team have to draw up a new contract, either could, with the agreement of the other, change anything on it not covered by the CBA.

[Hockey]

Not sure if it has been discussed in here, but when Bouwmeester was traded and missed the game does that mean that Henrik is the nhl ironman now?

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Hockey

Not sure if it has been discussed in here, but when Bouwmeester was traded and missed the game does that mean that Henrik is the nhl ironman now?

Nope. That's why he was traded after the St Louis game started, but before the Flames' game did. He's still the reigning ironman

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

Nope. That's why he was traded after the St Louis game started, but before the Flames' game did. He's still the reigning ironman

Ok thanks. I figured this was the case, cuz no one had brought it up.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I have no idea if this is correct or not - but I remember reading some (mis)information that said the clauses are either retained or not at the will of the franchise the player is moving to. Not sure if that is (or was) true or not, but the organization the player went to got to choose to retain the clauses or not.

As mentioned, that only applies to players traded before their NTC came into effect.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Would make sense, after all the player and team have to draw up a new contract, either could, with the agreement of the other, change anything on it not covered by the CBA.

No that would not make sense. NHL contracts can't be modified. When players get traded, the contract is assigned/transferred to another team. The old CBA contained language that only applied to players who was traded before their NTC came into effect (which makes sense from a vesting point of view). From a practical standpoint, a player with NTC being asked to waive to go to another team can and is likely to dictate that the team trading for him honors his NTC in case he is to be traded again.

[Bonded]

According to Mcguire, Detroit presented a much better offer for JBo than St. Louis. I wonder what it was and if Jay would not waive for Detroit. Not sure what the supposed offer was but interesting nonetheless.

[drPepper1]

Originally Posted by Bonded

According to Mcguire, Detroit presented a much better offer for JBo than St. Louis. I wonder what it was and if Jay would not waive for Detroit. Not sure what the supposed offer was but interesting nonetheless.

All ive heard was the Detroit option didnt include a first round pick

[868904]

Originally Posted by Bonded

According to Mcguire, Detroit presented a much better offer for JBo than St. Louis. I wonder what it was and if Jay would not waive for Detroit. Not sure what the supposed offer was but interesting nonetheless.

Feaster already said that Bouwmeester did not give the team any problems in this trade. He didn't have to authorize / waive anything.

If Detroit made an offer, it appears Feaster and company didn't think it was better than St. Louis'.

Or this is just McGuire throwing dirt at another GM who is on the hot seat in the hopes that he will get another opportunity to land a GM spot. Little man McGuire.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by drPepper1

All ive heard was the Detroit option didnt include a first round pick

+1. I read somewhere (think it was here on CP) that Detroit did not want to include the 1st.

[albertGQ]

Its been reported by many media outlets that Detroit wasn't willing to trade their 1st rounder as part of a package. The Blues were. So we chose the Blues package. Not sure where McGuire is coming up with this now.

[calumniate]

McGuire thought the Red Wings deal was something special? Looks like Feaster made the right trade

[dino7c]

McGuire is getting some attention...Detroit probably offered some kid McGuire saw with his shirt off and fell in love with.

no 1st no deal