Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Au Revoir Et Bonjour

Nice bit of foreshadowing/sybolism in this clip:


Tyler said...

The D in front of C. Huet in CHI will be:

Brian Campbell
Brent Seabrook
Cam Barker
Brent Sopel
Duncan Keith
James Wisniewski
and likely one more TBD.


JR said...

Even though this may be a blessing in disguise, as I ruminate more and more on the topic, I get annoyed. Wasn't $5 mil a year pretty common knowledge for the market value? WTF did McPhee accomplish by wasting everyone's time at 3.9, 4.2, 4.6...

The fact that he would have taken 3/15 months ago and we basically lost him over what, 500k/year more than the Caps really wanted to pay him? You don't wait until July 1 and then not expect the guy to check out some offers.

Maybe Huet still is what we thought he was. Maybe Theodore will be more than ample. But McPhee screwed this up, badly.

~Mark said...

It's not just the annual money, but the term + the money.
4 years from now, we may all thank our lucky stars we didn't commit that money to Huet.
One thing to note comparing the 2: Theodore's numbers in Colorado match pretty closely what Huet did in Montreal before coming here.
My point is, they're not that different statistically.
I think this makes a lot of sense actually.

JR said...

Let's not even talk about 4 years, 22 million. The 3 for 15 was on the table since April and by dicking around, we lost out on a good deal for us and the goalie we really wanted.

JP said...

@ JR: You call it "dicking around." I call it "negotiating."

Yes, if the Caps had met Huet's demands a month ago, he'd still be a Cap. But if they had met Green's demands a month ago, he might have cost more. If they had met Fedorov's demands a month ago, he'd be making $4m right now.

GMGM assumed that Huet might come down a little bit after coming up towards his number three different times - a fair, but evidently incorrect assumption. And had Huet come down, it could have been the difference between keeping a Laich or letting him walk. But Huet didn't budge and GMGM finally folded and came up to his number. I don't see fault there, but I respect that you do.

Your point is valid in that they could have probably signed Huet to a deal that fit within their salary structure and would have been fair relative to the eventual market value (obviously), but in my opinion it's very much a 20/20 hindsight argument that doesn't take into account the totality of circumstances and how deals get done.

Anonymous said...

I can't help make my argument in hindsight since the revelations regarding the lowballing tactics didn't come until yesterday. Also for months I was being told every which way that Huet was going to get signed, so I didn't really feel the need to rant.

JR said...

anonymous coward above = JR