Jump to content

Max Pacioretty Watch


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Why wouldn't they grant permission - ? 

Because they are MORONS.  I said this would happen 2 years ago after the Subban trade. They should have traded him the following summer. I had said at the time that Max would be looking to recoup his lost earnings from being underpaid and a lot of people here said that’s not the way it works - past contracts have no bearing to his future deal.  In Max’s mind it definitely does.

 

It as obvious that the moron MB still thought the team was a contender from his incredibly  idiotic contention that he thought the habs defence were better with his horrible Alzner pickup and letting Markov walk.  Given that he didn’t move max when he should have when the team collapsed by the end of the year following the Subban trade  and were absolute crap in the playoffs that year while watching Subban go to the finals (which intaelf should have led Molson to fire MB if. Himself had a brain), MB should have given him 3 options at least two weeks prior to the draft:

1) sign long term deal for 8 year for $5.5m (with mainly bonus money and lockout protection and no NtC clauses for the last 4 year of the deal).

2) 3 year deal for $7.5M heavy on bonus and lockout protection, but no NTC or NMC.

3) at least 2 to 3 weeks prior to the draft, tell him they don’t want to resign him and ask him where he is wants to go, see if those teams have assets that would have been a fit for Montreal and allow his agent to negotiate a contract.

 

From a habs standpoint, I doubt if options 2 or 3 were viable because it was obvious that MB felt max was part of a he attitude proble, rather than the crap, slow, late 90’s roster with a lack of skill he put together.  I doubt if the first two were options for Max, because he clearly wants to recoup lost earning son his team friendly current deal and wants full term.  That only left option 3, but MB is too much of a moron to have realized that and Molson is a bigger moron for not firing his turd of a GM.

 

now not only did we get a horrible return for galchenyuk, we also will get 10 cents on this he dollar for Macs. Another great summer for MB after trading his best prospect last year for another winger - who sucked last year at centre.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Toffoli is younger and would replace 60-70% of Max's offence at a cheap price. 

 

Vilardi is still a top prospect, even with the injury concerns. 

 

Thats a great trade, if its true... which as Brian brings up.... if. 

 

I'm going to go with my gut and say this trade can't be true, because it would actually prove Bergevin is capable of very good hockey decisions, and I am not comfortable with falling into that trap presently.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Why wouldn't they grant permission - ? 

1

 

Generally, teams will want a trade agreed on before granting a negotiation window.  You don't necessarily want a blanket window where teams can quietly use it to make overtures about next year's free agency that could turn around and hurt Montreal's leverage.  (That's not being moronic as H29 suggests, just proper business sense...)

 

For example, the Habs open up the window and Florida (a team it's believed he'd like to play for) comes and in says they'll give him x for x number of years but they don't have the payroll room to trade for him in 2018-19.  Pacioretty agrees to the deal in principle and turns around and tells the Habs and anyone else interested that he's no longer interested in pursuing an extension.  In doing so, the Habs just lost one of the few things going for them - a pure rental isn't going to garner as much in return as someone that has the willingness to extend.  Therefore, they won't grant the window until a deal is firmly agreed upon pending the acquiring team agreeing on an extension.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

Generally, teams will want a trade agreed on before granting a negotiation window.  You don't necessarily want a blanket window where teams can quietly use it to make overtures about next year's free agency that could turn around and hurt Montreal's leverage.  (That's not being moronic as H29 suggests, just proper business sense...)

 

For example, the Habs open up the window and Florida (a team it's believed he'd like to play for) comes and in says they'll give him x for x number of years but they don't have the payroll room to trade for him in 2018-19.  Pacioretty agrees to the deal in principle and turns around and tells the Habs and anyone else interested that he's no longer interested in pursuing an extension.  In doing so, the Habs just lost one of the few things going for them - a pure rental isn't going to garner as much in return as someone that has the willingness to extend.  Therefore, they won't grant the window until a deal is firmly agreed upon pending the acquiring team agreeing on an extension.

I’m not saying you let him negotiate before you decide on pieces you want. Ideally you do the following:

1) You ask max which teams he’s willing to sign for

2) from the list determine the teams that has players you want and would be a good fit

3) work out a potential deals with teams that max is willing to sign with

4) grant max’s agent permission to work out a deal with those teams, and you can start by only giving permission to the the team whose giving the best return.

 

you go through this process well in advance of the draft and the UFA period you can plan for next year - not at the draft.  You trade players with term, or make a deal with a team that isn’t concerned about being able to resign him before making the deal.  You don’t do at the last minute during the frigging draft try to go through this process when there is no time for Plan B. Now if the habs has traded maxpac 2 years ago when they should have they wouldn’t have to give max this much leverage, but it is moronic to expect another team to give up a lot of assets without the guarantee for the other team that they can resign him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Commandant said:

2 years ago teams would not have been able to negotiate an extension with max.

2 years ago there wouldn’t need to - it would be like a normal trade and not for a trade for a UFA.  A team would be getting Max for two year and two full playoff runs at a very cap friendly contract for a 30+ goal scorer. Not like now, where not only are you picking up a UFA, you are picking up a guy in an off year that looked like an aging scorer.

 

the whole issue with not moving Max is because MB was too dumb to see where this team was headed because of his dumb moves, the worst of which were trading Subban for an aging Weber, not developing Galchenyuk at centre, signing Shaw too two long of a contract fo too much money, re-upping Pleks and than after this team crapped the bed in the playoffs, trading Sergechev, not signing Markov and radulov, while signing the pylon Alzner and making the incredibly stupid “the defence is better” comment  before the start of last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

and making the incredibly stupid “the defence is better” comment  before the start of last year.

What other do you think he would say before a season starts?

"Our defense is thin and weak this year."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DON said:

What other do you think he would say before a season starts?

"Our defense is thin and weak this year."

That I’m looking to add another piece, or, we think that we have some young players who are ready to take the next step, - like most competent GM’s would way and have said in the past.

 

but than MB, being a moron - actually is delusional in believing  in hat hes making  the righ moves.  Kinda like the Subban, Sergechev and Galchenyuk deals. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

2 years ago there wouldn’t need to - it would be like a normal trade and not for a trade for a UFA.  A team would be getting Max for two year and two full playoff runs at a very cap friendly contract for a 30+ goal scorer. Not like now, where not only are you picking up a UFA, you are picking up a guy in an off year that looked like an aging scorer.

 

the whole issue with not moving Max is because MB was too dumb to see where this team was headed because of his dumb moves, the worst of which were trading Subban for an aging Weber, not developing Galchenyuk at centre, signing Shaw too two long of a contract fo too much money, re-upping Pleks and than after this team crapped the bed in the playoffs, trading Sergechev, not signing Markov and radulov, while signing the pylon Alzner and making the incredibly stupid “the defence is better” comment  before the start of last year.

 

You are absolutely right. MB thought he was building a contender, when in fact his moves dismantled a team that should have been. As a result he failed to take the actions that a wise GM would have taken, such as proactively trading Max.

 

But trading Max last year would have worked too; the acquiring team would have gotten two playoffs and a full season out of him, still decent return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Max was 100% available from january of last year at least.

 

If he wasnt traded at last years deadline it tells me the offers werent there.. not that he wasnt available.

The offers are going to be worse for a guy having his worst year, than a guy coming off a 30+ year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Max was 100% available from january of last year at least.

 

If he wasnt traded at last years deadline it tells me the offers werent there.. not that he wasnt available.

 

Fair enough. I just have a hard time believing his value will be higher trading him as a rental. That said, there is one complication here, which is that he had a bad season last year; a monster season will raise his value. But all things being equal, you'd think you'd get more for trading a guy with more rather than fewer seasons left on a ridiculously cheap contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Fair enough. I just have a hard time believing his value will be higher trading him as a rental. That said, there is one complication here, which is that he had a bad season last year; a monster season will raise his value. But all things being equal, you'd think you'd get more for trading a guy with more rather than fewer seasons left on a ridiculously cheap contract.

 

Rick Nash was having a garbage season and look what he got as a rental.

 

A very good d prospect 

 

A 40 point centre

 

A first rounder.

 

 

So im not convinced that we will get nothing for rental max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Rick Nash was having a garbage season and look what he got as a rental.

 

A very good d prospect 

 

A 40 point centre

 

A first rounder.

 

 

So im not convinced that we will get nothing for rental max.

 

I didn't say 'nothing.'  I just think it makes sense that return would be higher the more years Max had on that crazy cheap deal.

 

Also...Rick Nash was RICK NASH. One of those guys with the 'superstar' brand even though he wasn't. Rep goes a long way with too many GMs. I have a feeling that MaxPac is not as highly regarded despite being in the same class as Nash. So far in the rumours around him, he always seems to be down the teams' priority list ('they're waiting to see what happens with Karlsson...or with Kovalchuk...or with Kane...or so and so...before moving on Pacioretty,' etc.).

 

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. But to return to the main point, I don't see how we get more value for him as a rental than as a multi-year player (unless his value was depressed by his performance last year, and he corrects this with a monster season this year).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

That I’m looking to add another piece, or, we think that we have some young players who are ready to take the next step, - like most competent GM’s would way and have said in the past.

 

but than MB, being a moron - actually is delusional in believing  in hat hes making  the righ moves.  Kinda like the Subban, Sergechev and Galchenyuk deals. 

Again, not many GMs come out and say.."Oh crap, I sure got short end of that deal! or I shouldn't of signed that contract". It doesn't happen very often.

 

*It "seemingly" doesn't happen often, in case Commandant/dlbalr comes up with a dozen examples.

Edited by DON
disclaimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I didn't say 'nothing.'  I just think it makes sense that return would be higher the more years Max had on that crazy cheap deal.

 

Also...Rick Nash was RICK NASH. One of those guys with the 'superstar' brand even though he wasn't. Rep goes a long way with too many GMs. I have a feeling that MaxPac is not as highly regarded despite being in the same class as Nash. So far in the rumours around him, he always seems to be down the teams' priority list ('they're waiting to see what happens with Karlsson...or with Kovalchuk...or with Kane...or so and so...before moving on Pacioretty,' etc.).

 

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. But to return to the main point, I don't see how we get more value for him as a rental than as a multi-year player (unless his value was depressed by his performance last year, and he corrects this with a monster season this year).

 

Here's the thing. We will get a good trade deadline return for him. 1st round pick, decent prospect. Maybe a decent roster player too.

 

Now if we moved him at the draft, and he accepted an extension, we would have got more. And if we moved him with some years left, we would have got significantly more. So I don't think we will get just scraps, but nowhere near what we would have hoped once we knew we had a consistent 30 goal winger on a bargain.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2018 at 11:13 AM, hab29RETIRED said:

That I’m looking to add another piece, or, we think that we have some young players who are ready to take the next step, - like most competent GM’s would way and have said in the past.

 

but than MB, being a moron - actually is delusional in believing  in hat hes making  the righ moves.  Kinda like the Subban, Sergechev and Galchenyuk deals. 

Actually the moron is Geoff Molson. He continues to employ the idiot MB. This is starting to remind me of the Patrick Roy trade. Montreal will come out of the loosing end on 4 trades in a row from MB and spend  another decade trying to recover.  The only hope this once great franchise has is a change in ownership. Molson will not step down or aside to give running the team to competent people so an ownership change is needed. Only then will actual moves to improve the team happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Richard09 said:

Actually the moron is Geoff Molson. He continues to employ the idiot MB. This is starting to remind me of the Patrick Roy trade. Montreal will come out of the loosing end on 4 trades in a row from MB and spend  another decade trying to recover.  The only hope this once great franchise has is a change in ownership. Molson will not step down or aside to give running the team to competent people so an ownership change is needed. Only then will actual moves to improve the team happen. 

 

Molson as an owner is not a problem, it is far from it actually, considering under his leadership from a business standpoint he has returned the Franchise back near the very top of all NHL teams. He is as competent from the industry and business side of things as it gets, he also never hesitates to spend lavishly to provide any resources needed to give us an edge. Those are all the things expected of a great Owner and businessman, especially for a sports franchise.

 

The problem with Molson is he is not a President of Hockey Operations type, and that is where the issues begin and end. He is too soft hearted to get rid of people he has grown close to, gives too many chances to right the ship you are sinking for sentimental reasoning, not hockey operation reasoning. Simply put, Molson is a fantastic Owner and we are lucky to have him when you consider some of many less than ideal Owners floating around this league. But he unquestionably needs to hire a real President of Hockey operations, someone with the team at heart, a long history with us, who will do nothing less than ensure the culture we are trying to achieve is achieved and then maintained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has essentially given MB the power of a president of hockey operations.

 

Greg sherman is the GM of the Avs and Joe Sakic is the president of hockey opps.  Its just a title.  Sherman doesnt have the same responsibilities as Bergevin... Sakic does.

 

Masai Ujiri is the president of the raptors and some other dude is the gm.  Its a glorified title on the assistant.

 

Its essentially the same as Bergevin and Dudley were just with different titles.

 

If you bring in a president of hockey ops that is Molson saying that Bergevin cant do his current job. If thats the route to go down its essentially firing BErgevin and letting a new guy take over and rebuild the organization.

 

Dont get me wrong.  Bergevin is shit. Im fine with doing the whole fire everyone and put a new guy in charge routine.  I just dont think hiring a president and keeping Berg in charge creates a tennable situation

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

And if we moved him with some years left, we would have got significantly more.

Many (majority?) of HabFans wanted him gone, at some point, every year. Many wanted him & his buddy Desharnais dealt for a bag of pucks every time Pacioretty didn't score for 10 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DON said:

Many (majority?) of HabFans wanted him gone, at some point, every year. Many wanted him & his buddy Desharnais dealt for a bag of pucks every time Pacioretty didn't score for 10 games.

I wanted DD gone, so galchenyuk could play centre, or they would acquire a real centre.   I never wanted Pacioretty gone until after the Subban trade, because it was obvious the direction this team was going and that it needed to be blown up.  Frankly, I think we need to do a real rebuild and should have been looking to move Weber before he got hurt and both Weber and Price should be moved.  I just don’t want that idiot MB to be the one making those deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I wanted DD gone, so galchenyuk could play centre, or they would acquire a real centre.   I never wanted Pacioretty gone until after the Subban trade, because it was obvious the direction this team was going and that it needed to be blown up.  Frankly, I think we need to do a real rebuild and should have been looking to move Weber before he got hurt and both Weber and Price should be moved.  I just don’t want that idiot MB to be the one making those deals.

 

As the years have gone by and I've had some hindsight, moving Desharnais to LW in 13-14 was the ticket. He could have put up 40-50 points as a PP2 guy feeding passes for either Plekanec or Eller. 

 

Instead Therrien kept him at centre and hated removing him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Commandant said:

He has essentially given MB the power of a president of hockey operations.

 

Greg sherman is the GM of the Avs and Joe Sakic is the president of hockey opps.  Its just a title.  Sherman doesnt have the same responsibilities as Bergevin... Sakic does.

 

Masai Ujiri is the president of the raptors and some other dude is the gm.  Its a glorified title on the assistant.

 

Its essentially the same as Bergevin and Dudley were just with different titles.

 

If you bring in a president of hockey ops that is Molson saying that Bergevin cant do his current job. If thats the route to go down its essentially firing BErgevin and letting a new guy take over and rebuild the organization.

 

Dont get me wrong.  Bergevin is shit. Im fine with doing the whole fire everyone and put a new guy in charge routine.  I just dont think hiring a president and keeping Berg in charge creates a tennable situation

 

 

 

As much as we rag on Molson - me not least - we probably should pause and think about what we want from an owner.

 

We want someone who will spend money on hockey players. So far, he's done that. Even though the Habs were not a cap team last year, I never heard any suggestion it was due to parsimony on Molson's part. There were even rumours that he was the one who forced MB to give Subban his contract when Bergevin was arrogantly and pig-headedly starting to dig in his heels. So, all indications are that he is ponying up the dough.

 

We want an owner who will not be poking his big nose into hockey decisions. And although there are certain worrying signs on this front - his intervention in l'affaire Cunneyworth was disastrous, and I'm still not convinced he wasn't behind the asinine Briere signing - by and large, he seems to have deferred to his hockey people. He HAS to have known it was a huge PR risk to trade Subban, for instance, but he allowed it to be done anyway. He's paying that idiot Therrien's salary and he agreed to lock up Julien for a crazy long span. Certainly, he is nothing like the Aqualinis, who have their fingerprints all over all kinds of (usually dumb) hockey-related decisions here in Van.

 

His reluctance to fire Bergevin, while quite destructive given MB's proven incompetence, can be thought to be consistent with an owner who seeks to defer to his hockey people. He is erring on the side of not interfering in hockey ops. You could argue that, from a long-term perspective, that actually bodes well...because if he ever *does* put competent hockey people in place, they will have a lot of room to do their thing.

 

The argument for putting a President in place is to serve the function of a Pierre Boivon - i.e., a buffer between owner and management. I think this is a good idea in principle, but agree that if we were to hire such a guy, he probably shouldn't be a high-profile hockey man (who would therefore become a rival to Bergevin or whichever GM is there). Rather he should be responsible for assessments of overall managerial performance according to well-defined criteria, and otherwise tend to leave the GM alone, as Boivin generally seems to have done.

 

All told, then, I'm not so sure you can argue that Molson is not a good, or at least a promising, owner. Be careful what you wish for. A meddling owner could leave the Habs in worse shape if and when they finally do hit EJECT on the disastrous Bergevin wera.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...