Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dlbalr

Free Agent Day Thread

214 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

It hasn't happened yet but it really makes my head spin.

 

Trade Sergachev, acquire Drouin.

 

Lose Markov

 

Trade Galchenyuk, acquire Markov's replacement

 

Galchenyuk for Drouin

Sergachev for Makov's replacement

 

OK, but why?

 

Still early, just seems the most common assumption amongst people. 

Actually it was trade Subban and say, non big deal that we are older, because we have Sergechev in the stable.

 

than to add scoring, you trade sergechev.  However you don't really add scoring, because you lose radulov.  So Drouin actually is just a radulov replacement.

 

than you lose markov, and your only chip of value is going to be galchenyuk.  If that happens, how are we better off today than we were before we traded Subban.  Defence is weaker.  Offensive depth is weaker, but oh yeah, we signed 8 more depth players for the bottom line and Laval.  MB must have modelled after the Harold Ballard approach to building a team.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel Hanley, another of Montreal's non-qualified players, signs a one year deal with Arizona.  Speaking of former Hab prospects, Tinordi to Pittsburgh on a one year deal.

 

Alexei Emelin has been dealt to Nashville for a 3rd round pick.  That's who they used the savings on Colin Wilson on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think I can stomach losing Rad. With Radulov resigned our forward core is pretty damn good, minus a proper center. Without, him though, it's meh, like last year.

 

I'd prefer to trade plex if possible for room to retain Rad and Marky, and sign Galchenyuk.

 

I do not mind giving markov 2 years. Six is a little high for two though. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So big focus on Laval, I like.  2 Cs and 2 Ds for the AHL team

 

Alzner wasn't over priced

 

Still need to get one (and hopefully both) of Markov/Radulov signed. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

I dont think I can stomach losing Rad. With Radulov resigned our forward core is pretty damn good, minus a proper center. Without, him though, it's meh, like last year.

 

I'd prefer to trade plex if possible for room to retain Rad and Marky, and sign Galchenyuk.

 

I do not mind giving markov 2 years. Six is a little high for two though. 

 

If you trade Pleks, and give Markov 2 years the problem is you have no space for Price's extension. 

 

Plek coming off the books is Price's money.

 

If Plek is moved to make room, great, but Markov better be 1 year so that there is room for Price's money. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dlbalr said:

Joel Hanley, another of Montreal's non-qualified players, signs a one year deal with Arizona.  Speaking of former Hab prospects, Tinordi to Pittsburgh on a one year deal.

 

Alexei Emelin has been dealt to Nashville for a 3rd round pick.  That's who they used the savings on Colin Wilson on.

 

$1.2 million retained by Vegas on Emelin too. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

If you trade Pleks, and give Markov 2 years the problem is you have no space for Price's extension. 

 

Plek coming off the books is Price's money.

 

If Plek is moved to make room, great, but Markov better be 1 year so that there is room for Price's money. 

After moving plex wouldn't we have 21 mill in space? 

 

You would hope Markov would sign for 5.5 at 2 years. Radulov is looking expensive.. 6.5 x 5 years (just hypothetical here)

 

Finally Galchenyuk, if we go long term let's say 6x6

 

thats 18 mill, leaving 3 mill for Prices raise from 6.5 mill.

 

Assuming the cap increases by at least 500k, we could still hypothetically have the space to sign Price at 10mill for 6 years AND the previous moves.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I'm interested to hear the opinion of those who discuss Poile and Nashville's supposed vision of acquiring high skilled puck moving defenseman after acquiring someone like Emelin.

 

I'm not one to talk though as...

 

1) I was about the only one who thought Emelin was a good pick by Vegas and all it turned out to be worth was a 3rd round pick.

 

2) I always liked Emelin and still do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

:lol: I'm interested to hear the opinion of those who discuss Poile and Nashville's supposed vision of acquiring high skilled puck moving defenseman after acquiring someone like Emelin.

 

I'm not one to talk though as...

 

1) I was about the only one who thought Emelin was a good pick by Vegas and all it turned out to be worth was a 3rd round pick.

 

2) I always liked Emelin and still do.

 

Seems to me they will use Emelin as a bottom pairing guy (unlike the hapless Habs) and save 1.2 mil on his contract. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think if markov isn't back, galchenyuk is as good as gone.  Who else is he going to trade for a markov replacement?

 

If Radu re-signs with MTL (which I think he will) then Chuky gets dealt for a top LHD to play with Weber.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JGC21 said:

 

If Radu re-signs with MTL (which I think he will) then Chuky gets dealt for a top LHD to play with Weber.

 

 

In which we really haven't added to our offence.  All we've done is replace galchenyuk with Drouin 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

In which we really haven't added to our offence.  All we've done is replace galchenyuk with Drouin 

 

Correct.  But my guess is they see Drouin as a better option to convert to C than Galchenyuk.

 

Pacioretty - Drouin - Radulov

Byron - Danault - Gallagher

Lehkonen - Plekanec - Shaw

Hudon - Mitchell - McCarron

Martinsen, De La Rose

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meller93 said:

After moving plex wouldn't we have 21 mill in space? 

 

You would hope Markov would sign for 5.5 at 2 years. Radulov is looking expensive.. 6.5 x 5 years (just hypothetical here)

 

Finally Galchenyuk, if we go long term let's say 6x6

 

thats 18 mill, leaving 3 mill for Prices raise from 6.5 mill.

 

Assuming the cap increases by at least 500k, we could still hypothetically have the space to sign Price at 10mill for 6 years AND the previous moves.

 

Price isnt the only raise. 

Danault needs a raise next year

 

McCarron and De La Rose will need small bumps. 

 

Also Our current roster with 16.4 in space is 18 guys.  Add 3 (Rad, Markov, Chuck) and its 21.  Still need 1-2 more to be added to the cap, call that 1.5 mill or so.  if plek gone, add another 700-800K for his roster replacement.

 

And you also need to leave yourself 1-1.5 million or so in space for callups. 

 

You'd be cutting it way too close IMO..... 

 

You need to leave a bit for 2018... or have a contract that expires in 2018. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerabek is also on a one year ELC.  He'll be UFA next year.   If he's any good, he's going to need a raise, and if he sucks and we let him walk, his replacement is at best a small saving from his 925K

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Jerabek is also on a one year ELC.  He'll be UFA next year.   If he's any good, he's going to need a raise, and if he sucks and we let him walk, his replacement is at best a small saving from his 925K

I agree with everything you're saying, we need some leeway, and we need to fill enough roster spots. However, even if it requires more work than I outlined, in my opinion you pay to keep your stars. You pay Radulov and Galchenyuk for sure.

 

Markov at one year Solves those Price/Danault issues, but he might not do that.

 

I just don't want to lose Rad for nothing mostly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Seems to me they will use Emelin as a bottom pairing guy (unlike the hapless Habs) and save 1.2 mil on his contract. 

I'm not pleased that Nashville will be able to comfortably use Emelin on the 3rd pairing knowing that we used him on our top pairing for much of last season.

 

We now signed Alzner who many call an upgrade on Emelin so how are we to be sure that Alzner won't be considered "good enough" for the top pairing since Emelin was and is lower on the totem pole than Alzner. The alternative, which wouldn't be any better, seems to be to trade Galchenyuk for a top pairing defenseman. Hopefully those are both simply assumptions.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emelin was a third pair guy in 15-16. It was some weird idea of Therrien to put Emelin with Weber. Julien didn't play Emelin very much in the top four from what I recall. 

 

He is an overpaid third pair defenceman who gets the occasional big hit. I know Nashville likely felt that they needed to get stronger on the third pair since it can be a weakness for them but I never would have gone with Emelin.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

Emelin was a third pair guy in 15-16. It was some weird idea of Therrien to put Emelin with Weber. Julien didn't play Emelin very much in the top four from what I recall. 

 

He is an overpaid third pair defenceman who gets the occasional big hit. I know Nashville likely felt that they needed to get stronger on the third pair since it can be a weakness for them but I never would have gone with Emelin.

 

I wonder if Subban put a word in for him - ?

8 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I'm not pleased that Nashville will be able to comfortably use Emelin on the 3rd pairing knowing that we used him on our top pairing for much of last season.

 

We now signed Alzner who many call an upgrade on Emelin so how are we to be sure that Alzner won't be considered "good enough" for the top pairing since Emelin was and is lower on the totem pole than Alzner. The alternative, which wouldn't be any better, seems to be to trade Galchenyuk for a top pairing defenseman. Hopefully those are both simply assumptions.

 

 

 

Your concerns are valid. IF they re-sign Markov, they can certainly come away and say, 'well, we upgraded on D.' Right now the D looks significantly worse from a transition/offence POV (which is not to deny that Alzner is a real upgrade on Emelin).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Meller93 said:

I agree with everything you're saying, we need some leeway, and we need to fill enough roster spots. However, even if it requires more work than I outlined, in my opinion you pay to keep your stars. You pay Radulov and Galchenyuk for sure.

 

Markov at one year Solves those Price/Danault issues, but he might not do that.

 

I just don't want to lose Rad for nothing mostly.

 

i didn't say to lose both.  i said you can't just trade plek and give both multi year deals.  Multi year to rad and 1 year to Markov and Plek out works fine... or if Plek stays you are looking at likely only one of the two back

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing how we afford all 3 of Markov, Radulov and Galchenyuk now.   We have 15 million cap space.  The best I can see is

4 million for Glachenyuk, 6 million for Radulov and 5 million for Markov.  I don't think any of the 3 will sign for that number.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter Puck said:

I'm not seeing how we afford all 3 of Markov, Radulov and Galchenyuk now.   We have 15 million cap space.  The best I can see is

4 million for Glachenyuk, 6 million for Radulov and 5 million for Markov.  I don't think any of the 3 will sign for that number.

 

It's actually less when you factor in that players like Hudon and de la Rose are likely to make the roster.  I've got them at a max of $14 million to spend and that doesn't even include the $1-$1.5M wiggle room they'd probably like to keep to start the season.  They can't afford to sign all three as things currently stand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Meller93 said:

I agree with everything you're saying, we need some leeway, and we need to fill enough roster spots. However, even if it requires more work than I outlined, in my opinion you pay to keep your stars. You pay Radulov and Galchenyuk for sure.

 

Markov at one year Solves those Price/Danault issues, but he might not do that.

 

I just don't want to lose Rad for nothing mostly.

Seems $6m for 4 years is a pretty fair offer, for a guy with somewhat tainted past and also going through personal issues at present. How much risk do you really want to take?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DON said:

Seems $6m for 4 years is a pretty fair offer, for a guy with somewhat tainted past and also going through personal issues at present. How much risk do you really want to take?

 

Ultimately I don't care who the players are, as long as they represent overall improvement. So go ahead and let Radu and The General walk. But then Bergevin needs to find ways of replacing the lost talent and offence they represent, without weakening the team overall. Last year's team was not good enough. Next year's team needs to be better. Period. No more f***ing excuses from this management group. Weber is 32. Time's a wasting for this core. Deliver or piss off.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bergevin's press conference is at 3 PM EST - will there be any news on Markov, Radulov, or Price by then?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would give Markov the terms he wants but without a no trade clause allowing him to be salary dumped if need be at the end of the season. He is an important piece still this year. Radulov same thing. Give them their asking price but refuse any form of no trade clause.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0