fred@mirror.UUCP (11/15/85)
Peters for Riggan
Any thoughts on this trade. As a Bruin fan I can't figure this one out.
As far as I could tell Peters didn't have that bad a start although
Keenes has started much better. I would like to hear from people in
Washington in particular am not aware what Riggans status was. WHo
initiated this trade Boston or Washington?
--
Fred Nesseralla {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube} !mirror!fred
Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Ave.
617-661-0777 Cambridge, MA, 02140jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (11/27/85)
> > Peters for Riggan > > Any thoughts on this trade. As a Bruin fan I can't figure this one out. > As far as I could tell Peters didn't have that bad a start although > Keenes has started much better. I would like to hear from people in > Washington in particular am not aware what Riggans status was. WHo > initiated this trade Boston or Washington? > -- > Fred Nesseralla {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube} !mirror!fred > Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Ave. > 617-661-0777 Cambridge, MA, 02140 The story I heard here in Toronto is that the Bruins had finally decided that Keans was going to be their number one goalie and was going to play most of their games. That being the case, they figured the kind of salary they were paying Peeters was too much to pay a backup goalie, so they traded him to unload his salary and to give him a chance to be a number one goalie again. On the other hand, Riggin has some impressive stats for a backup goalie too, and he has held the number one job with Washington throughout most of his term there, but presumably his salary is less than Peeters'. Someone told me he was sent to the minors for a little while a year or two ago, so maybe they figure he isn't consistent enough to be number one. The trade I can't figure out is Babych for Neufeld. I know the Jets are off to a very disappointing start, but I can't figure out why they would trade their top defenseman for a forward when they were already well-stocked on forward (though right wing was their weakest forward position I think). They have one of the best offences in the league; it's their defence that badly needs strengthening. I saw them play the lowly Penguins right after the trade, and the defence looked lost without Babych. Neufeld didn't help much either, since the Jets lost 8-1. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
djm@rayssd.UUCP (Dan R. Murphy) (12/05/85)
=== REFERENCED ARTICLE =================================== > Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rayssd.UUCP > Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP > Path: rayssd!raybed2!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utzoo!dciem!jeff > From: jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) > Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey > Subject: Re: Peters for Riggan (& Babych for Neufeld) > Message-ID: <1734@dciem.UUCP> > Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 16:02:13 EST > Article-I.D.: dciem.1734 > Posted: Tue Nov 26 16:02:13 1985 > Date-Received: Sat, 30-Nov-85 18:32:14 EST > References: <65500001@mirror.UUCP> > Reply-To: jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) > Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada > Lines: 37 > > > > > Peters for Riggan > > > > Any thoughts on this trade. As a Bruin fan I can't figure this one out. > > As far as I could tell Peters didn't have that bad a start although > > Keenes has started much better. I would like to hear from people in > > Washington in particular am not aware what Riggans status was. WHo > > initiated this trade Boston or Washington? > > -- > > Fred Nesseralla {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube} !mirror!fred > > Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Ave. > > 617-661-0777 Cambridge, MA, 02140 > > The story I heard here in Toronto is that the Bruins had finally decided > that Keans was going to be their number one goalie and was going to play > most of their games. That being the case, they figured the kind of salary > they were paying Peeters was too much to pay a backup goalie, so they > traded him to unload his salary and to give him a chance to be a number one > goalie again. On the other hand, Riggin has some impressive stats for a > backup goalie too, and he has held the number one job with Washington > throughout most of his term there, but presumably his salary is less than > Peeters'. Someone told me he was sent to the minors for a little while > a year or two ago, so maybe they figure he isn't consistent enough to be > number one. > > The trade I can't figure out is Babych for Neufeld. I know the Jets are > off to a very disappointing start, but I can't figure out why they would > trade their top defenseman for a forward when they were already well-stocked > on forward (though right wing was their weakest forward position I think). > They have one of the best offences in the league; it's their defence that > badly needs strengthening. I saw them play the lowly Penguins right after > the trade, and the defence looked lost without Babych. Neufeld didn't > help much either, since the Jets lost 8-1. > -- > Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 > {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff ========================================================== The word I heard around the Boston Garden was that Sinden was fed up with Peeters' attitude. He supposedly is a constant complainer and blames other teammates when he loses a game. I don't feel it is true that Keans is being handed the #1 goalie job. He is a very streaky goaltenter. It may be up to one of them to step forward and take the job. -- Dan Murphy, RSSD, Newport