Jump to content

John B

Member
  • Content Count

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by John B

  1. I think the blame falls on both scouting and development, but IMO more so on development. More specifically on how the Habs organization handles their prospects (although Lefebvre was a terrible development coach). I've never been a big fan of rushing prospects to the NHL. A year or two of seasoning isn't going to hurt a player's development unless that player has nothing left to prove at the lower level. Take Cole Caufield for example. There are some fans already to pencil him in to the lineup when his NCAA season ends. He's had a good season in the NCAA no doubt, but is he strong enough to play in the NHL? Has his defensive game improved to the point where Julien isn't going to be constantly benching him for mistakes or limiting his ice time to where he becomes irrelevant? Has his skating improved enough? My point is that he hasn't dominated the NCAA and he still has the same question marks to his game now as he did when he was drafted. I'm sure there has been some improvement, but has there been enough? Would another year in the NCAA where he can work on getting bigger/stronger, faster/quicker/more elusive, and more defensively responsible hurt his development? I realize that a lot of teams rush players to the NHL and that sometimes it works out. I don't like it when the Habs do it with high end talent though. If they want to rush a low ceiling prospect to the NHL, go nuts. I'd rather see them take their time with the high ceiling guys though. I'm a strong believer in developing through lots of ice time and opportunities as opposed to sheltered minutes and limited games. Undeveloped prospects should be at a level where development is the priority. The priority in Montreal is to make the playoffs and not cost the team points in the standings. As a result, some prospects end up getting limited roles/ice time/opportunities which can adversely affect their development IMO. In conclusion, I believe that the Habs would have more success with their prospects if they were a little more patient with their development. This doesn't mean that Timmins and the scouting staff is off the hook either. It's not like I/we always agree with who the Habs pick. I also think that some of these prospects have to take some responsibility for busting as well (could've had a better work ethic/attitude etc.).
  2. Good deal for the Habs. Very low risk and worst case scenario is he can be dealt at the deadline if he doesn't fit in or if the Habs fall out of the playoff race. If nobody wants him, he's gone July 1st. If he plays well, Habs can resign him (likely for cheap on a show me contract). Well done.
  3. According to capfriendly.com, the 3rd rounder turns into a 2nd rounder if the Coyotes win a playoff round or Hall resigns. If the Coyotes win a playoff round and Hall resigns, it becomes a 1st rounder.
  4. I wonder if they're scouting someone in particular in Rockford. Gustafsson makes sense if the Habs are looking for LD help, but why would they also be scouting Rockford. Maybe it's a bigger multi player deal or maybe Bergevin is looking at a smaller trade (minor leaguer for minor leaguer type).
  5. Thank you for the clarification on his NMC.
  6. Correct, Petry has a NMC and a M-NTC (15 team no trade list). All it says on capfriendly.com for the clause details is :Starting 2018-19, Lists 15 teams he can not be traded to. So because he has the NMC as well, I'm not sure how that works. Maybe he can still list 15 teams that he can not be traded to and still say no to the other 15 if he wants? It's just weird having both. If the Habs can get a top d prospect or good young NHL defenseman and a pick for Weber, I have no problem with that. I just think some teams might be reluctant to pony up for a 34 year old defenseman with another 6 years @ just over $7.8M. Which is why I think it could affect his value. Winnipeg could be another interesting destination for Weber though. Byfuglien has left the team for personal reasons and contemplating retirement (I thought I read somewhere that he had surgery of some kind as well). If the Habs could get Heinola from the Jets and maybe a pick it could be interesting as well. It really depends on what Byfuglien's plan is for his future.
  7. I still rather move Petry than Weber. Weber is a good leader and captain of this club. He's also going to be more difficult to move and might yield less value than Petry who's cap hit is a little over $2M less and only has one more year left on it (his contract also contains a 15 team no trade list though). I don't think Petry has as much trade value if the Habs extend him assuming he gets market value (around $7M) and term (greater than 3 years). I do agree that the Habs should keep one of the two though and if they end up moving Weber instead of Petry, I'm not going to be overly disappointed (depending on the return of course and assuming that they've resigned Petry).
  8. If the Habs decide to go the rebuild route I don't think it's a bad ideal to keep Weber, Price, and maybe even Gallagher around as the leadership group. If the Habs get an offer they can't refuse for one of them, than they strongly have to consider doing it, but otherwise they keep them. I'd trade Petry and Tatar while they're at peak value.
  9. I'd be OK with this trade if Vancouver were willing to do it.
  10. The problem with trying to make this team a Cup contender in the short term is that their window to do so will be short. So, they are going to need to find all their puzzle pieces quickly. There needs to be a willingness to do whatever it takes to acquire those pieces. If that means trading some good young roster players (Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Fleury) or top prospects (Caufield, Romanov, Poehling, ect.) or high end picks (1st/2nd rounders), than so be it. If they aren't willing to do that, than I can't support the idea of trying to win in the short term. I'm tired of the Habs building mediocre teams and relying on luck or parity to win the Cup. I don't want to see a team that is as good as other teams, I want to see one that is better. I want to have confidence that the Habs can beat any team in a 7 game series and not be the underdog all the time.
  11. Absolutely. Habs have relied heavily on goaltending for a long time. Not just with Price.
  12. For sure. It's going to take some convincing for Holland to deal one of his top prospects. He's not a GM that gets taken advantage of very often.
  13. I like it. Edmonton has a few nice pieces if a trade for Byron could be worked out. Jones is definitely one. Samorukov and Puljujarvi are a couple others. Habs would have to take a cap hit back. Maybe taking back Gagner convinces the Oilers to do the trade. Habs could send a non-prospect AHLer (like Waked or Pezzetta) back so they don't add to the 50 contract limit.
  14. Even if Alzner were going the other way, I still wouldn't want Vlasic. Vlasic would be more useful now, but in a few years he'll be Alzner all over again. I'd rather just let Alzner's contract run out and move on or trade him for another team's bad contract with similar term and cap hit in the hopes of a better fit.
  15. Sharks seem like an odd team to be scouting. Not much on the left side that is better than what the Habs already have. Vlasic (NMC), Dillon, and Ferraro, with Simek on IR and Middleton on LTIR. Even their LD prospects are just OK with Kniazev leading the pack.
  16. I think a bunch of teams would like to have Price, but can they fit him under the cap and is he willing to waive his NMC to go there? The question for the Habs would be, are they getting the value they should for him? Any trade involving Price or Weber will likely have to involve salary retention or taking back cap space. I doubt Bergevin is even thinking about moving either one. A lot of the fan base and the media would lose their minds. Having said that, I don't think Price and Weber should be untouchables. If the right deal can be reached, I hope that the Habs would make the trade.
  17. I don't think anyone can say 100% for sure what is going to happen with Bergevin and the coaching staff if they miss the playoffs again. I think it would be dumb to can any of them right now. The plan was to retool the team. That takes time. More than a couple seasons. If Molson agreed to that plan and then cans his GM before he is able to see it through, that would be stupid. If Bergevin cans Julien and his coaching staff after he under-equipped them to compete for the playoffs, that would also be stupid. Patience is required.
  18. I'd be willing to trade them, but I think it would be more difficult to get good value for them because of their contracts. Not every team will want an $8 million good, but aging defenseman that is signed for another 6 years after this one. Price is a whole other story. He has a full NMC. He isn't going anywhere unless he wants to. Even if he did want to, he's chosing the destination which will probably result in less of a return. It could end up like when Calgary traded Iginla where they probably should have gotten a lot more for him elsewhere, but he would only agree to go to Pittsburgh. So while the Habs may not need Price and Weber to accomplish the goal, they still need to get good/fair value for them if they are being traded.
  19. I was just thinking about this while I was at work today. It's funny that I come onto this site and see that somebody started a thread about it. I want to start by giving some kudos to Bergevin for sticking to his plan. I'm not completely clear on what his plan is, but it seems like he's not willing to mortgage the future at this point. I think it's a smart move, because I don't see any way this team is going to win a Cup this year short of acquiring Connor McDavid and adding a top pair LD without giving up anything of real consequence the other way. As far as giving a name to what Bergevin is doing goes...I'm going to call it a re-tool, which I'm not a big fan of. IMO a re-tool is a direction a GM chooses when he doesn't know what direction to choose (rebuild or all in are the directions IMO). Sometimes this plan of action works though. It's what the Habs and a lot of other teams have been doing for a long time now. Since Bergevin seems to be placing a higher value on the future than the present, it might be a good ideal for him to start moving on from some veterans that may not serve a purpose or play as big of a role when this team enters their Cup window (which might be a few years from now). I would be looking at moving Petry and Tatar in the next couple years. Petry's contract expires after next season and he becomes a UFA at 33 years old. If he continues to produce like he has the last couple of seasons, you can bet that he'll want well over $6 million/season with term. That might be fine for a year or two, but after that I don't think he'll be worth that cap hit. So unless Habs can convince him to take a 2 year extension it's not going to a pretty contract. Tatar will only be 30 when his contract expires, but again he'll likely be looking for a raise and term (likely 5 to 6 years) if he decides to return at all. The trade value of both of these players will never be higher than it is now and both players will have a limited window of effectiveness during Montreal's prime contention years. If Bergevin gets a good offer for Weber or Price, he has to strongly consider it. Their cap hits could hurt this team during their Cup window. I think Price will age gracefully like Brodeur or Luongo did and still be a good/solid starting goaltender for the duration of his contract, but good/solid starters aren't worth a $10.5 million cap hit. More like ~$6 million. As for Weber, we are already starting to see signs of the decline. Honestly I don't think the Habs could get fair value (or at least worthwhile value) for Price or Weber due to their cap hits and term and Price's NMC. Price isn't going anywhere unless he asks to. Overall it's all about cap and asset management right now. If the Habs are smart with the way they handle contracts and don't sign anymore Alzners while handing out any ridiculous contracts, the cap should be good. It will just be a matter of getting younger at some key roster positions to try and have a lengthy Cup window.
  20. According to Eric Engels the offer to Dallas from the Habs for Honka is a player. The article didn't say or speculate who that player was. The article is up on thehockeynews.com right now. Also seen a tweet from Engels yesterday when reading comments on anther site stating the same thing, but that the Stars were more interested in a pick than a player.
  21. Shattenkirk? I would have thought Brendan Smith over Shattenkirk. Too bad he's RD otherwise I wouldn't mind the Habs taking a run at him if he is bought out (Shattenkirk that is).
  22. That would certainly work for me too.
  23. That was a good deal for Carolina. Really wish the Habs had done this. If Marleau agrees to play, the Habs have a good versatile veteran leader that play in the middle six and help mentor the young guys for a year. If he decides that he doesn't want to play for the Habs, he gets bought out and his cap hit is only for next season (as opposed to spreading it out over multiple seasons) and the Habs save a roster spot/contract slot. It would have been win win.
  24. I don't have a problem with Bergevin doing this. I'm hoping for more quality than quantity though. I liked the Mason deal last season, but I would have preferred a 2nd round pick or a good prospect to a 3 piece package of middling value.
  25. Another solid deal for the Habs. Can't complain about bottom 6 guys getting bottom 6 money and term. Bravo Bergevin! This is good cap/contract management.
×
×
  • Create New...