dlbalr

Trotter's KHL team is now reporting on their site that the deal with the Habs is done but still nothing official from Montreal yet. http://www.dinamoriga.lv/lv/news/view/trotters-izmeginas-spekus-nhl

My 2 cents on what Gorges will get: http://www.habsworld.net/article.php?id=2506

Who's your pick for Game 7? What an implosion early on tonight.

I was referring more to the point that the Habs didn't just get 2 days of negotiating rights for 2 players, 1 actually stayed. Boyd in Nashville was getting the same treatment that Pouliot did, not qualified but not necessarily released.

If he wants to maximize the money, it won't be Pittsburgh who only can really afford to give him a 6 figure deal. Detroit will have some space with Rafalski retiring but they need to use that on a defenceman, not another winger. The Habs have enough to give him the 2.5 if that figure's true. (So too will the Rangers with the Drury buyout...and possibly Wolski too but they will want to wait until after Richards signs.)

More musings (in Czech) with this report saying he will likely spurn the KHL and go back to the NHL for around $2.5 million with the Habs being one of 4 listed teams that are interested. (Detroit is the one we haven't heard before.) http://isport.blesk.cz/clanek/hokej/106442/rusko-ne-u-jaromira-jagra-asi-vyhraje-nhl.html

Not quite. Boyd was one of the players and as we know he did play for Montreal/Hamilton this year.

There is also an argument for a floor team to take him and buy him out. Though the full cap hit remains, the actual buyout money wise is still 2/3 over two years. A team with a really cheap owner could find small value in that.

I believe the Devils still haven't replaced Lemaire. Considering Muller's old ties there, the Habs aren't out of the woods yet.

It's a technicality. You may recall he wasn't qualified (for less) last year so after a poorer performance and a higher QO, he won't be this time around. It doesn't necessarily mean he won't be back (though given what happened at the end of last year, that alone should spell the end of his tenure) but it would be through non-conventional measures like last year.

I don't qualify the return (Mara and MacIntyre in the end) as zilch, Mara added a little depth (which is all that Lapierre was) while MacIntyre single handedly bought Hamilton a lengthy playoff run, aiding in the development of players like Palushaj, White, Nash, and Engqvist amongst plenty of others. That counts as something in my books though it can't obviously be quantified in terms of how much it helped.

Either that or they know they're going to have to pay big to bring in the high end AHL guys so why not bring over someone they're familiar with that has played with some of the Bulldogs already? (Assuming he clears waivers of course.) As saskhab noted, he could very well be intended to be the Pouliot replacement. (And I will once again note there is 0 chance Pouliot gets qualified.)

Well, the Dallas announcement still isn't done but perhaps Muller is no longer the frontrunner (or wasn't to begin with). Quick note from MacKenzie on his picks has Muller not landing in Ottawa, Dallas, or Minnesota. (For those keeping track of the coaching vacancies, Florida has already named their replacement, Kevin Dineen.) http://twitter.com/#!/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/80045618256551936 I also don't think Muller will take over in Winnipeg when the new GM gets around to firing their current coach. That job is likely earmarked for Claude Noel.

It's a bit of a different situation, I'm not sure there's a comparison here. Dawes heading into this year had nearly 200 games of NHL experience and was 25 going in, not a whole lot of development left for him having been around as long as he has. Trotter had 2 games experience and was 23. One was somewhat of a proven player while Trotter was still an unknown especially coming to the pro game at a later age than Dawes. Dawes is a UFA come next offseason too as he'll turn 27 during the season, him going over all but ends his career with Montreal unless they can get him to sign next May/June (certainly a possibility though).

He was very good for the Habs in last year's playoffs too before having an awful regular season. Also, he's actually an RFA this summer, not unrestricted yet. His performance in the postseason has at least earned him a qualifying offer, something that probably wasn't going to happen in Montreal and clearly wouldn't have happened with the Ducks.

It's also been noted here several times. As long as they receive a qualifying offer each year, the Habs hold their rights until they turn 27, just as has been done with Perezhogin over the years.

4 years, $4.2 million per year left.

Trotter to return with a 1 year, 1 way contract? Interesting. (Latvian link for those wondering...) http://www.apollo.lv/portal/sports/articles/240785&usg=ALkJrhjJIlYf_9WH2hVnkBAIbAsZU5htaQ

No player can be assigned to the AHL until the waiver period commences which is roughly 2 weeks before the start of the season (I forget the exact number off the top of my head). So Weber can't be sent through to the Bulldogs until the waiver period opens, hence, he'd have to clear. I'm sadly not aware of a link where the finer points are explained; everything's in the CBA as long as you're willing to tolerate a lot of lawyer-speak. The no bonus cushion does pertain to the CBA expiration, you're correct there. As for Ponikarovsky, 2 horrendous stops in PIT and LA as you alluded to are concerning. Defensively, he's not good enough to be in a bottom 6 (unless you have 3 offensive lines) and he no longer can play a top six role. There were also a lot of concerns with his effort level which is what got him benched. He had to wait a long time to get a contract last summer and he didn't do anything to earn one quicker this time around, unless of course he's willing to take a significant pay cut.

It should be noted that without the bonus cushion in place, teams simply cannot start over the cap. The Habs would forfeit all games until they get back in compliance. Weber also must clear waivers to go down and he'd easily be snapped up. Ponikarovsky will be lucky to get half of $2.75 M, he may even be lucky to get a contract period. (I like the out of the box thinking if nothing else.)

2-3 million? It saves money but generally not that much. As an example, Mike Richards is underpaid (relatively speaking) at $5.75 but by no means is he a 7.75-8.75 M player. Long term generally saves in the hundreds of thousands up to just over 1 million unless you're doing a retirement contract like a Marc Savard or even Kovalchuk. None of the players you're advocating the 7 year deals for fall under that category. You're right in that it doesn't make a lot of sense to go 5 years for Subban or anyone coming off an entry level deal unless the goal is to get him signed for the lowest possible cap hit with a long-ish term. Sure, a 5 year pact only buys out one UFA year but the cap hit will be cheaper than if you're tacking on extra UFA years. Depending on what the cap situation is for that team, that may be the ideal scenario in some circumstances.

Though my strategy obviously wasn't going to let me win the pool (I don't think there was one out there that could), it's worked out pretty well. Despite having only 8 of a possible 12 players available this round, I've moved up over 26,000 spots since the start of round 3 and heading into tonight's Game 5, still moved up around 8,000 spots since the Finals started. At least I'll have a semi-respectable finish now.

They're priced right if they perform to expectations. If they don't, then you run into a Calgary situation where half the team has bloated multi year contracts and you perpetually spin your wheels. Locking up a key piece, a franchise player is one thing, but your secondary pieces? There's a reason no teams have given their secondary players (note the plural) long-term deals, the risk outweighs the reward. Sure, you can sign 3 or 4 but if one falters, your savings pretty much go out the window as the bloated value of the one deal offsets what you saved by going long-term on the others. And just so it's out there, if anyone hasn't already guessed, I'm very much against any deal beyond 5 years for any player. I actually expect this to be a point of contention in the next CBA; I suspect we may see a few more of those types of deals from teams hoping to get them done before that 'loophole' potentially closes.

I don't see White the same way. I don't think talent wise he'll be good enough to be a 3rd liner, not enough offensive punch. Although minor league stats clearly don't always tell the tale, Pyatt was a much, much better offensive performer in Hamilton than he was. He certainly can help the team but his role will likely be as a 6-8 minute energy player. Although having some consistency is good, I still don't offer him more than a 1 year deal until he actually proves he can be a regular NHL'er over a full season. As for Higgins, part of the issue with him is that even though we all saw him as a very good 3rd liner, it wasn't up until the last year or so that he saw himself the same way. With the Habs, there were always rumblings that he wasn't happy with his role, rumblings that also manifested in New York. Now, he seems to embrace that role and I agree, he'd be a solid pickup for a two-way 3rd line.

I can understand some of those but 7 years to Ryan White? 4th line players under no circumstance should get 7 year deals; if they were that good, they wouldn't be 4th liners.