Parrish on trading block

[Dominator2005 558]

According to HockeyTradeRumors.com, the Islanders have sent a memo to the other 29 teams asking for offers for Mark Parrish. I know the Coyotes and Wild have been interested, but I expect others to jump into this as well. As a Leaf fan, I'd love to see Parrish in blue and white, but at this point Phoenix and Minnesota are the only two teams I've heard that are seriously interested. The McKee rumours have begun, just like I said they would. Once again, Phoenix is said to be the front-runner, with Toronto, Colorado, Florida and Washington also said to be involved. Apparently Buffalo is trying to package Biron into this deal, which leads me to believe Colorado may win this one, as they still need a backup.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey/ny-sp...ockey-headlines

[theman19 47]

i dunno about that one. hockeytraderumors.com hasn't really struck me as anything but a place for wild rumors. will see though.

[Dominator2005 558]

i dunno about that one. hockeytraderumors.com hasn't really struck me as anything but a place for wild rumors. will see though.

That rumor is also on www.newsday.com

[Henkka 0]

We would need right winger like him. Send Dats to Long Island for Parrish + some defensive prospect.

[Terrible Ted 0]

Parrish is very streaky and over-rated.

[CupCrazy22 6]

Parrish is very streaky and over-rated.

Yes, he is, but maybe if he gets a change of atmosphere and is surrounded by some real veteran leadership, he could really come into his own and be a decent production player.

[whoisjohngalt? 0]

They'd have to throw at least Kvasha in the deal for it to be worth trading Datsyuk. Parrish's season stats aren't that great and his playoff stats are even worse.

Best season 2001/2002 60 pts in 81 games and a +10

Last season 35pts in 59 games and a +8

[HockeyCrazy3033 168]

I remember watching the Isles in 01-02 Parrish had a great season, and I kept saying to myself that I wish he was a Wing. I don't think he's very consistent but when he's on a hot streak he's awesome. I'd definitely get him.

[eva unit zero 271]

Parrish and Kvasha for Dats? I would do that.

FYI:

a Parrish and an unproductive 'failed experiment' Kvasha went to NYI for a Luongo and and a rather inconsistent and unproductive 'first round bust' Jokinen.

Looks like all four are turning into at least pretty decent players.

[norrisnick 1]

Parrish and Kvasha for Dats? I would do that.

FYI:

a Parrish and an unproductive 'failed experiment' Kvasha went to NYI for a Luongo and and a rather inconsistent and unproductive 'first round bust' Jokinen.

Looks like all four are turning into at least pretty decent players.

Milbury was so unbelievably hosed on that deal (among others).

peace

[eva unit zero 271]

Parrish and Kvasha for Dats? I would do that.

FYI:

a Parrish and an unproductive 'failed experiment' Kvasha went to NYI for a Luongo and and a rather inconsistent and unproductive 'first round bust' Jokinen.

Looks like all four are turning into at least pretty decent players.

Milbury was so unbelievably hosed on that deal (among others).

peace

At the same time, Milbury until 2001 Was operating under a lower budget than Calgary or Edmonton and he didn't get the media 'oh but it's a small market Canadian team' free pass.

Imagine if Milbury could have had the Rangers' budget, or even just the ability to keep his own players, back in the 90s?

Many of those picks came before the Isles' budget crisis of the mid/late 90s, so the argument of 'later picks, worse players' wouldn't hold water.

Imagine them getting to hold onto those guys?

Much better team to go with and build on...could have been back on top by now.

[norrisnick 1]

At the same time, Milbury until 2001 Was operating under a lower budget than Calgary or Edmonton and he didn't get the media 'oh but it's a small market Canadian team' free pass.

Imagine if Milbury could have had the Rangers' budget, or even just the ability to keep his own players, back in the 90s?

Many of those picks came before the Isles' budget crisis of the mid/late 90s, so the argument of 'later picks, worse players' wouldn't hold water.

Imagine them getting to hold onto those guys?

Much better team to go with and build on...could have been back on top by now.

I don't believe it was a case of not being able to hang onto players, but more of a case of not knowing which players to hang onto. He's made countless crazy trades. He's traded away Bertuzzi, McCabe, Berard, Chara, Redden, Brewer, Luongo, Jokinen, Spezza (indirectly), Osgood, etc... Half the time he trades away the assets he traded for.

peace

[eva unit zero 271]

At the same time, Milbury until 2001 Was operating under a lower budget than Calgary or Edmonton and he didn't get the media 'oh but it's a small market Canadian team' free pass.

Imagine if Milbury could have had the Rangers' budget, or even just the ability to keep his own players, back in the 90s?

Many of those picks came before the Isles' budget crisis of the mid/late 90s, so the argument of 'later picks, worse players' wouldn't hold water.

Imagine them getting to hold onto those guys?

Much better team to go with and build on...could have been back on top by now.

I don't believe it was a case of not being able to hang onto players, but more of a case of not knowing which players to hang onto. He's made countless crazy trades. He's traded away Bertuzzi, McCabe, Berard, Chara, Redden, Brewer, Luongo, Jokinen, Spezza (indirectly), Osgood, etc... Half the time he trades away the assets he traded for.

peace

Osgood was traded when he was coming back from injury, while snow was playing great and he was opening up room for dipietro.

That was not a matter of bad decision and more a matter of moving forward. I think they should have moved Snow while he was hot, instead of moving a guy going into the last year of his deal. Bt they got a decent prospect and picks for him, so it wasn't all bad.

The Redden thing was a matter of him not wanting to play there and Berard not wanting to play in Ottawa. Milbury would have rather had Redden, he just didn't get the choice. In all fairness, the deal was made basically at the draft and Berard was considered the better player.

Chara was basically equal to Eric Cairns as an Isle...he took a major developmental step in Ottawa that never looked like it was going to happen in NY.

Bertuzzi was regressing in his development and he and the coaches had lost confidence. Not exactly the best thing for a young player.

Brewer was traded for Roman Hamrlik, who was better then and is better now. At 26, Brewer could get much better than he is now, but he's not nearly as good as Oilers fans liked to make him out to be. To call trading Brewer in that deal a bad decision is like saying Keenan shouldn't have traded Shanny for Pronger.

McCabe was appearing to regress as well. His ice time increased yearly, but he was getting worse defensively and only the ice time increased his points from year one to two, and his offense disappeared from his second to third year until after the trade. He scored 12 points in 56 games that yea as an Isle. Unfortunately, it appears to have just been an Isles thing, as he potted 12 points in 26 games with the Nucks (a pace he would not repeat until 01-02, as Toronto's #1 defenseman.)

Bertuzzi was in that trade basically so Vancouver got a forward and so the Isles didn't have to deal with him any more. McCabe was the prize. Of course he was later traded for a first round pick in Burke's Sedin shuffling, and we see how good those moves turned out.

I don't think he got full value for Luongo...but there was the feeling he had to deal one of the goalies, and he felt Dipietro had better upside (which is why he took him first overall in the first place.)

A slick move Milbury might have been able to get away with would have been to trade Luongo to Atlanta for the second pick and something else...He could have then gotten his goalie, Heatley, and whatever else.

Jokinen scored 21 points in 82 games as an isle, after scoring 21 in 66 as a king his rookie year. his production would drop again his first year as a panther, before raising to 29 his fourth year. It wasn't until his fifth year, third as a panther, that he posted big numbers. He is also a career -86, his best being even in his second year. He has 210 points in 477 games. Jokinen's first two years with the Panthers were still not as productive as Parrish's career-worst season (first year with NYI.) Parrish has 254 points in 442 games, is a -25, and a 3-time plus. Both are 6-year vets. Kvasha has had the best +/- success (four times plus in six years, career -3), but has been the least offensively productive (185 points in 429 games)

So all players have been basically even over their careers, with Jokinen's huge last two years pulling him up to par. Kvasha is just breaking out, so he should be up on that 55-65 point level, and Parrish has shown he can do that. He should hover around the 50-55 point mark for the next few years, maybe a little higher.

I think Kvasha will end up as the best forward of the three because while +/- is not a great defensive indicator, Kvasha is easily the best defensive forward of the bunch and he is more physical than the others. I think he might have the most offensive upside when all is said and done as well..he has shown some real skill that is still developing. Jokinen and Parrish should be comparable.

So Luongo for Kvasha was basically what Milbury did. If Dipietro pans out as he could and Kvasha does well (he led the Isles in scoring last year and is only 25, so it seems entirely possible) then while on its own that's not great, in context that doesn't turn out so bad.

Berard was traded for Potvin around the same time Tommy Salo was traded for Mats Lindgren.and the pick used on Radek Martinek, who has turned out pretty well. That was later in the season in 1998-99.

The Isles early the next season traded Potvin and a irrelevant pik for Weekes, Scatchard, and Muckalt, all of whom were very solid for the Isles. Vancouver dropped Potvin for free within a season, so Milbury comes off pretty well there.

The next summer, Weekes, Kudroc, and the pick used on Matthew Spiller were traded for a first pick (Torres) and a couple other picks used on crap prospects.

So basically, within a season and a half it was Berard, Kudroc, and Salo for Lindgren, Martinek, Torres, Scatchard, Muckalt. That's a pretty decent return.

torres was traded in 03 with brad isbister for janne niinimaa.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

At the same time, Milbury until 2001 Was operating under a lower budget than Calgary or Edmonton and he didn't get the media 'oh but it's a small market Canadian team' free pass.

Imagine if Milbury could have had the Rangers' budget, or even just the ability to keep his own players, back in the 90s?

Many of those picks came before the Isles' budget crisis of the mid/late 90s, so the argument of 'later picks, worse players' wouldn't hold water.

Imagine them getting to hold onto those guys?

Much better team to go with and build on...could have been back on top by now.

I don't believe it was a case of not being able to hang onto players, but more of a case of not knowing which players to hang onto. He's made countless crazy trades. He's traded away Bertuzzi, McCabe, Berard, Chara, Redden, Brewer, Luongo, Jokinen, Spezza (indirectly), Osgood, etc... Half the time he trades away the assets he traded for.

peace

Osgood was traded when he was coming back from injury, while snow was playing great and he was opening up room for dipietro.

That was not a matter of bad decision and more a matter of moving forward. I think they should have moved Snow while he was hot, instead of moving a guy going into the last year of his deal. Bt they got a decent prospect and picks for him, so it wasn't all bad.

The Redden thing was a matter of him not wanting to play there and Berard not wanting to play in Ottawa. Milbury would have rather had Redden, he just didn't get the choice. In all fairness, the deal was made basically at the draft and Berard was considered the better player.

Chara was basically equal to Eric Cairns as an Isle...he took a major developmental step in Ottawa that never looked like it was going to happen in NY.

Bertuzzi was regressing in his development and he and the coaches had lost confidence. Not exactly the best thing for a young player.

Brewer was traded for Roman Hamrlik, who was better then and is better now. At 26, Brewer could get much better than he is now, but he's not nearly as good as Oilers fans liked to make him out to be. To call trading Brewer in that deal a bad decision is like saying Keenan shouldn't have traded Shanny for Pronger.

McCabe was appearing to regress as well. His ice time increased yearly, but he was getting worse defensively and only the ice time increased his points from year one to two, and his offense disappeared from his second to third year until after the trade. He scored 12 points in 56 games that yea as an Isle. Unfortunately, it appears to have just been an Isles thing, as he potted 12 points in 26 games with the Nucks (a pace he would not repeat until 01-02, as Toronto's #1 defenseman.)

Bertuzzi was in that trade basically so Vancouver got a forward and so the Isles didn't have to deal with him any more. McCabe was the prize. Of course he was later traded for a first round pick in Burke's Sedin shuffling, and we see how good those moves turned out.

I don't think he got full value for Luongo...but there was the feeling he had to deal one of the goalies, and he felt Dipietro had better upside (which is why he took him first overall in the first place.)

A slick move Milbury might have been able to get away with would have been to trade Luongo to Atlanta for the second pick and something else...He could have then gotten his goalie, Heatley, and whatever else.

Jokinen scored 21 points in 82 games as an isle, after scoring 21 in 66 as a king his rookie year. his production would drop again his first year as a panther, before raising to 29 his fourth year. It wasn't until his fifth year, third as a panther, that he posted big numbers. He is also a career -86, his best being even in his second year. He has 210 points in 477 games. Jokinen's first two years with the Panthers were still not as productive as Parrish's career-worst season (first year with NYI.) Parrish has 254 points in 442 games, is a -25, and a 3-time plus. Both are 6-year vets. Kvasha has had the best +/- success (four times plus in six years, career -3), but has been the least offensively productive (185 points in 429 games)

So all players have been basically even over their careers, with Jokinen's huge last two years pulling him up to par. Kvasha is just breaking out, so he should be up on that 55-65 point level, and Parrish has shown he can do that. He should hover around the 50-55 point mark for the next few years, maybe a little higher.

I think Kvasha will end up as the best forward of the three because while +/- is not a great defensive indicator, Kvasha is easily the best defensive forward of the bunch and he is more physical than the others. I think he might have the most offensive upside when all is said and done as well..he has shown some real skill that is still developing. Jokinen and Parrish should be comparable.

So Luongo for Kvasha was basically what Milbury did. If Dipietro pans out as he could and Kvasha does well (he led the Isles in scoring last year and is only 25, so it seems entirely possible) then while on its own that's not great, in context that doesn't turn out so bad.

Berard was traded for Potvin around the same time Tommy Salo was traded for Mats Lindgren.and the pick used on Radek Martinek, who has turned out pretty well. That was later in the season in 1998-99.

The Isles early the next season traded Potvin and a irrelevant pik for Weekes, Scatchard, and Muckalt, all of whom were very solid for the Isles. Vancouver dropped Potvin for free within a season, so Milbury comes off pretty well there.

The next summer, Weekes, Kudroc, and the pick used on Matthew Spiller were traded for a first pick (Torres) and a couple other picks used on crap prospects.

So basically, within a season and a half it was Berard, Kudroc, and Salo for Lindgren, Martinek, Torres, Scatchard, Muckalt. That's a pretty decent return.

torres was traded in 03 with brad isbister for janne niinimaa.

Nice breakdown!

[eva unit zero 271]

At the same time, Milbury until 2001 Was operating under a lower budget than Calgary or Edmonton and he didn't get the media 'oh but it's a small market Canadian team' free pass.

Imagine if Milbury could have had the Rangers' budget, or even just the ability to keep his own players, back in the 90s?

Many of those picks came before the Isles' budget crisis of the mid/late 90s, so the argument of 'later picks, worse players' wouldn't hold water.

Imagine them getting to hold onto those guys?

Much better team to go with and build on...could have been back on top by now.

I don't believe it was a case of not being able to hang onto players, but more of a case of not knowing which players to hang onto. He's made countless crazy trades. He's traded away Bertuzzi, McCabe, Berard, Chara, Redden, Brewer, Luongo, Jokinen, Spezza (indirectly), Osgood, etc... Half the time he trades away the assets he traded for.

peace

Osgood was traded when he was coming back from injury, while snow was playing great and he was opening up room for dipietro.

That was not a matter of bad decision and more a matter of moving forward. I think they should have moved Snow while he was hot, instead of moving a guy going into the last year of his deal. Bt they got a decent prospect and picks for him, so it wasn't all bad.

The Redden thing was a matter of him not wanting to play there and Berard not wanting to play in Ottawa. Milbury would have rather had Redden, he just didn't get the choice. In all fairness, the deal was made basically at the draft and Berard was considered the better player.

Chara was basically equal to Eric Cairns as an Isle...he took a major developmental step in Ottawa that never looked like it was going to happen in NY.

Bertuzzi was regressing in his development and he and the coaches had lost confidence. Not exactly the best thing for a young player.

Brewer was traded for Roman Hamrlik, who was better then and is better now. At 26, Brewer could get much better than he is now, but he's not nearly as good as Oilers fans liked to make him out to be. To call trading Brewer in that deal a bad decision is like saying Keenan shouldn't have traded Shanny for Pronger.

McCabe was appearing to regress as well. His ice time increased yearly, but he was getting worse defensively and only the ice time increased his points from year one to two, and his offense disappeared from his second to third year until after the trade. He scored 12 points in 56 games that yea as an Isle. Unfortunately, it appears to have just been an Isles thing, as he potted 12 points in 26 games with the Nucks (a pace he would not repeat until 01-02, as Toronto's #1 defenseman.)

Bertuzzi was in that trade basically so Vancouver got a forward and so the Isles didn't have to deal with him any more. McCabe was the prize. Of course he was later traded for a first round pick in Burke's Sedin shuffling, and we see how good those moves turned out.

I don't think he got full value for Luongo...but there was the feeling he had to deal one of the goalies, and he felt Dipietro had better upside (which is why he took him first overall in the first place.)

A slick move Milbury might have been able to get away with would have been to trade Luongo to Atlanta for the second pick and something else...He could have then gotten his goalie, Heatley, and whatever else.

Jokinen scored 21 points in 82 games as an isle, after scoring 21 in 66 as a king his rookie year. his production would drop again his first year as a panther, before raising to 29 his fourth year. It wasn't until his fifth year, third as a panther, that he posted big numbers. He is also a career -86, his best being even in his second year. He has 210 points in 477 games. Jokinen's first two years with the Panthers were still not as productive as Parrish's career-worst season (first year with NYI.) Parrish has 254 points in 442 games, is a -25, and a 3-time plus. Both are 6-year vets. Kvasha has had the best +/- success (four times plus in six years, career -3), but has been the least offensively productive (185 points in 429 games)

So all players have been basically even over their careers, with Jokinen's huge last two years pulling him up to par. Kvasha is just breaking out, so he should be up on that 55-65 point level, and Parrish has shown he can do that. He should hover around the 50-55 point mark for the next few years, maybe a little higher.

I think Kvasha will end up as the best forward of the three because while +/- is not a great defensive indicator, Kvasha is easily the best defensive forward of the bunch and he is more physical than the others. I think he might have the most offensive upside when all is said and done as well..he has shown some real skill that is still developing. Jokinen and Parrish should be comparable.

So Luongo for Kvasha was basically what Milbury did. If Dipietro pans out as he could and Kvasha does well (he led the Isles in scoring last year and is only 25, so it seems entirely possible) then while on its own that's not great, in context that doesn't turn out so bad.

Berard was traded for Potvin around the same time Tommy Salo was traded for Mats Lindgren.and the pick used on Radek Martinek, who has turned out pretty well. That was later in the season in 1998-99.

The Isles early the next season traded Potvin and a irrelevant pik for Weekes, Scatchard, and Muckalt, all of whom were very solid for the Isles. Vancouver dropped Potvin for free within a season, so Milbury comes off pretty well there.

The next summer, Weekes, Kudroc, and the pick used on Matthew Spiller were traded for a first pick (Torres) and a couple other picks used on crap prospects.

So basically, within a season and a half it was Berard, Kudroc, and Salo for Lindgren, Martinek, Torres, Scatchard, Muckalt. That's a pretty decent return.

torres was traded in 03 with brad isbister for janne niinimaa.

Nice breakdown!

Thanks...it's just that I've always thought Milbury was a very underrated GM.

The moment he was given a budget beyond 'whatever he could get from the gumball machine in the lobby' he turned the team into a pretty solid team by swinging just a couple deals. He didn't have much to work with from a last-place team--if Chara had been looking at all like future Norris material, he would either 1) never have had to include the pick or 2) gotten a much larger return, perhaps including Phillips.

Speaking of GMs and budget management...how about Clarke, Burke, and Lamoirello this year?

Burke and Lamoirello were always praised for their skills at keeping a low budget but building a quality team, while Clarke was one of the guys derided for overspending and it was said if a cap was put in that the Flyers would fall apart. Wonder what's going through those minds?

[RyanBarnes! 293]

At the same time, Milbury until 2001 Was operating under a lower budget than Calgary or Edmonton and he didn't get the media 'oh but it's a small market Canadian team' free pass.

Imagine if Milbury could have had the Rangers' budget, or even just the ability to keep his own players, back in the 90s?

Many of those picks came before the Isles' budget crisis of the mid/late 90s, so the argument of 'later picks, worse players' wouldn't hold water.

Imagine them getting to hold onto those guys?

Much better team to go with and build on...could have been back on top by now.

I don't believe it was a case of not being able to hang onto players, but more of a case of not knowing which players to hang onto. He's made countless crazy trades. He's traded away Bertuzzi, McCabe, Berard, Chara, Redden, Brewer, Luongo, Jokinen, Spezza (indirectly), Osgood, etc... Half the time he trades away the assets he traded for.

peace

Osgood was traded when he was coming back from injury, while snow was playing great and he was opening up room for dipietro.

That was not a matter of bad decision and more a matter of moving forward. I think they should have moved Snow while he was hot, instead of moving a guy going into the last year of his deal. Bt they got a decent prospect and picks for him, so it wasn't all bad.

The Redden thing was a matter of him not wanting to play there and Berard not wanting to play in Ottawa. Milbury would have rather had Redden, he just didn't get the choice. In all fairness, the deal was made basically at the draft and Berard was considered the better player.

Chara was basically equal to Eric Cairns as an Isle...he took a major developmental step in Ottawa that never looked like it was going to happen in NY.

Bertuzzi was regressing in his development and he and the coaches had lost confidence. Not exactly the best thing for a young player.

Brewer was traded for Roman Hamrlik, who was better then and is better now. At 26, Brewer could get much better than he is now, but he's not nearly as good as Oilers fans liked to make him out to be. To call trading Brewer in that deal a bad decision is like saying Keenan shouldn't have traded Shanny for Pronger.

McCabe was appearing to regress as well. His ice time increased yearly, but he was getting worse defensively and only the ice time increased his points from year one to two, and his offense disappeared from his second to third year until after the trade. He scored 12 points in 56 games that yea as an Isle. Unfortunately, it appears to have just been an Isles thing, as he potted 12 points in 26 games with the Nucks (a pace he would not repeat until 01-02, as Toronto's #1 defenseman.)

Bertuzzi was in that trade basically so Vancouver got a forward and so the Isles didn't have to deal with him any more. McCabe was the prize. Of course he was later traded for a first round pick in Burke's Sedin shuffling, and we see how good those moves turned out.

I don't think he got full value for Luongo...but there was the feeling he had to deal one of the goalies, and he felt Dipietro had better upside (which is why he took him first overall in the first place.)

A slick move Milbury might have been able to get away with would have been to trade Luongo to Atlanta for the second pick and something else...He could have then gotten his goalie, Heatley, and whatever else.

Jokinen scored 21 points in 82 games as an isle, after scoring 21 in 66 as a king his rookie year. his production would drop again his first year as a panther, before raising to 29 his fourth year. It wasn't until his fifth year, third as a panther, that he posted big numbers. He is also a career -86, his best being even in his second year. He has 210 points in 477 games. Jokinen's first two years with the Panthers were still not as productive as Parrish's career-worst season (first year with NYI.) Parrish has 254 points in 442 games, is a -25, and a 3-time plus. Both are 6-year vets. Kvasha has had the best +/- success (four times plus in six years, career -3), but has been the least offensively productive (185 points in 429 games)

So all players have been basically even over their careers, with Jokinen's huge last two years pulling him up to par. Kvasha is just breaking out, so he should be up on that 55-65 point level, and Parrish has shown he can do that. He should hover around the 50-55 point mark for the next few years, maybe a little higher.

I think Kvasha will end up as the best forward of the three because while +/- is not a great defensive indicator, Kvasha is easily the best defensive forward of the bunch and he is more physical than the others. I think he might have the most offensive upside when all is said and done as well..he has shown some real skill that is still developing. Jokinen and Parrish should be comparable.

So Luongo for Kvasha was basically what Milbury did. If Dipietro pans out as he could and Kvasha does well (he led the Isles in scoring last year and is only 25, so it seems entirely possible) then while on its own that's not great, in context that doesn't turn out so bad.

Berard was traded for Potvin around the same time Tommy Salo was traded for Mats Lindgren.and the pick used on Radek Martinek, who has turned out pretty well. That was later in the season in 1998-99.

The Isles early the next season traded Potvin and a irrelevant pik for Weekes, Scatchard, and Muckalt, all of whom were very solid for the Isles. Vancouver dropped Potvin for free within a season, so Milbury comes off pretty well there.

The next summer, Weekes, Kudroc, and the pick used on Matthew Spiller were traded for a first pick (Torres) and a couple other picks used on crap prospects.

So basically, within a season and a half it was Berard, Kudroc, and Salo for Lindgren, Martinek, Torres, Scatchard, Muckalt. That's a pretty decent return.

torres was traded in 03 with brad isbister for janne niinimaa.

Nice breakdown!

Thanks...it's just that I've always thought Milbury was a very underrated GM.

The moment he was given a budget beyond 'whatever he could get from the gumball machine in the lobby' he turned the team into a pretty solid team by swinging just a couple deals. He didn't have much to work with from a last-place team--if Chara had been looking at all like future Norris material, he would either 1) never have had to include the pick or 2) gotten a much larger return, perhaps including Phillips.

Speaking of GMs and budget management...how about Clarke, Burke, and Lamoirello this year?

Burke and Lamoirello were always praised for their skills at keeping a low budget but building a quality team, while Clarke was one of the guys derided for overspending and it was said if a cap was put in that the Flyers would fall apart. Wonder what's going through those minds?

I don't recognize Lamoriello anymore. I've always been an admirer of his, but his moves this season has been anything but impressive. Signing Malakhov at $3.6 M?!

I think both Clarke and Burke has done pretty good this season so far. It'll be interesting to see how Clarke handles the task of getting under the cap again.

Darryl Sutter is looking more and more like the new king of GM's, IMO.

[eva unit zero 271]

At the same time, Milbury until 2001 Was operating under a lower budget than Calgary or Edmonton and he didn't get the media 'oh but it's a small market Canadian team' free pass.

Imagine if Milbury could have had the Rangers' budget, or even just the ability to keep his own players, back in the 90s?

Many of those picks came before the Isles' budget crisis of the mid/late 90s, so the argument of 'later picks, worse players' wouldn't hold water.

Imagine them getting to hold onto those guys?

Much better team to go with and build on...could have been back on top by now.

I don't believe it was a case of not being able to hang onto players, but more of a case of not knowing which players to hang onto. He's made countless crazy trades. He's traded away Bertuzzi, McCabe, Berard, Chara, Redden, Brewer, Luongo, Jokinen, Spezza (indirectly), Osgood, etc... Half the time he trades away the assets he traded for.

peace

Osgood was traded when he was coming back from injury, while snow was playing great and he was opening up room for dipietro.

That was not a matter of bad decision and more a matter of moving forward. I think they should have moved Snow while he was hot, instead of moving a guy going into the last year of his deal. Bt they got a decent prospect and picks for him, so it wasn't all bad.

The Redden thing was a matter of him not wanting to play there and Berard not wanting to play in Ottawa. Milbury would have rather had Redden, he just didn't get the choice. In all fairness, the deal was made basically at the draft and Berard was considered the better player.

Chara was basically equal to Eric Cairns as an Isle...he took a major developmental step in Ottawa that never looked like it was going to happen in NY.

Bertuzzi was regressing in his development and he and the coaches had lost confidence. Not exactly the best thing for a young player.

Brewer was traded for Roman Hamrlik, who was better then and is better now. At 26, Brewer could get much better than he is now, but he's not nearly as good as Oilers fans liked to make him out to be. To call trading Brewer in that deal a bad decision is like saying Keenan shouldn't have traded Shanny for Pronger.

McCabe was appearing to regress as well. His ice time increased yearly, but he was getting worse defensively and only the ice time increased his points from year one to two, and his offense disappeared from his second to third year until after the trade. He scored 12 points in 56 games that yea as an Isle. Unfortunately, it appears to have just been an Isles thing, as he potted 12 points in 26 games with the Nucks (a pace he would not repeat until 01-02, as Toronto's #1 defenseman.)

Bertuzzi was in that trade basically so Vancouver got a forward and so the Isles didn't have to deal with him any more. McCabe was the prize. Of course he was later traded for a first round pick in Burke's Sedin shuffling, and we see how good those moves turned out.

I don't think he got full value for Luongo...but there was the feeling he had to deal one of the goalies, and he felt Dipietro had better upside (which is why he took him first overall in the first place.)

A slick move Milbury might have been able to get away with would have been to trade Luongo to Atlanta for the second pick and something else...He could have then gotten his goalie, Heatley, and whatever else.

Jokinen scored 21 points in 82 games as an isle, after scoring 21 in 66 as a king his rookie year. his production would drop again his first year as a panther, before raising to 29 his fourth year. It wasn't until his fifth year, third as a panther, that he posted big numbers. He is also a career -86, his best being even in his second year. He has 210 points in 477 games. Jokinen's first two years with the Panthers were still not as productive as Parrish's career-worst season (first year with NYI.) Parrish has 254 points in 442 games, is a -25, and a 3-time plus. Both are 6-year vets. Kvasha has had the best +/- success (four times plus in six years, career -3), but has been the least offensively productive (185 points in 429 games)

So all players have been basically even over their careers, with Jokinen's huge last two years pulling him up to par. Kvasha is just breaking out, so he should be up on that 55-65 point level, and Parrish has shown he can do that. He should hover around the 50-55 point mark for the next few years, maybe a little higher.

I think Kvasha will end up as the best forward of the three because while +/- is not a great defensive indicator, Kvasha is easily the best defensive forward of the bunch and he is more physical than the others. I think he might have the most offensive upside when all is said and done as well..he has shown some real skill that is still developing. Jokinen and Parrish should be comparable.

So Luongo for Kvasha was basically what Milbury did. If Dipietro pans out as he could and Kvasha does well (he led the Isles in scoring last year and is only 25, so it seems entirely possible) then while on its own that's not great, in context that doesn't turn out so bad.

Berard was traded for Potvin around the same time Tommy Salo was traded for Mats Lindgren.and the pick used on Radek Martinek, who has turned out pretty well. That was later in the season in 1998-99.

The Isles early the next season traded Potvin and a irrelevant pik for Weekes, Scatchard, and Muckalt, all of whom were very solid for the Isles. Vancouver dropped Potvin for free within a season, so Milbury comes off pretty well there.

The next summer, Weekes, Kudroc, and the pick used on Matthew Spiller were traded for a first pick (Torres) and a couple other picks used on crap prospects.

So basically, within a season and a half it was Berard, Kudroc, and Salo for Lindgren, Martinek, Torres, Scatchard, Muckalt. That's a pretty decent return.

torres was traded in 03 with brad isbister for janne niinimaa.

Nice breakdown!

Thanks...it's just that I've always thought Milbury was a very underrated GM.

The moment he was given a budget beyond 'whatever he could get from the gumball machine in the lobby' he turned the team into a pretty solid team by swinging just a couple deals. He didn't have much to work with from a last-place team--if Chara had been looking at all like future Norris material, he would either 1) never have had to include the pick or 2) gotten a much larger return, perhaps including Phillips.

Speaking of GMs and budget management...how about Clarke, Burke, and Lamoirello this year?

Burke and Lamoirello were always praised for their skills at keeping a low budget but building a quality team, while Clarke was one of the guys derided for overspending and it was said if a cap was put in that the Flyers would fall apart. Wonder what's going through those minds?

I don't recognize Lamoriello anymore. I've always been an admirer of his, but his moves this season has been anything but impressive. Signing Malakhov at $3.6 M?!

I think both Clarke and Burke has done pretty good this season so far. It'll be interesting to see how Clarke handles the task of getting under the cap again.

Darryl Sutter is looking more and more like the new king of GM's, IMO.

Sutter made good moves last season, but his team got worse since 2004. He lost his forward depth, his defense is stagnant (I haven't checked, but I think they may have gotten older too despite bringing in two rookies into the top seven with three changes) and he lost one of the best backup goalies in the league-someone who was a major factor in getting to the playoffs last season-and replaced him with someone with virtually no NHL experience and far less ability at this point, and did this while his starter has never played even close to a full load of games.

Burke has 19 players signed for around 34m. However, he is missing one of his top three defensemen and one of his better offensive forwards. After those two, the team will not have any money left. Chistov will get 1-1.5, Salei will get 2-3. That's at least 37m in payroll, possibly a maxed cap for just 21 players.

Anaheim's roster is not nearly as good as Detroit's even WITHOUT Datsyuk, and Holland is one of the biggest flak-catchers when it comes to the overspending things.

Outside of a few players, Burke has made most of the moves on Anaheim's roster.

Signing Niedermayer instead of a guy like Berard or Aucoin is exactly why I think Burke has screwed up. He's top loaded his payroll, when he could have paid half as much for a highly effective offensive defenseman. Nieds is better, sure, but Anaheim needed to improve with more than just him. By getting Niedermayer, Ozolinsh is made basically obsolete but still gets nearly 3m. Paying 3-4m for Aucoin or Berard wouldn't have been that bad, as Ozolinsh would have made up the difference offensively. He was able to sign Selanne for 1m, but Selanne had a horrible season last year so his value dropped, plus he wanted to play in Anaheim anyway so he was willing to take less (which a lot of players did)

If he was planning on going after Niedermayer, he should have bought out Fedorov. There's only room for one of them on that payroll.

Edited September 6, 2005 by eva unit zero