KoZed Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 For one thing, our D would be Hamrlik at 5.5M, Gorges, possibly Schneider, and a bunch of rookies. Then who do we surround him with at forward? For now, we have the Kostitsyns, Latendresse, Higgins, D'Agostini and Paccioretty. But what about when these guys, as well as both our goalies next summer, as well as all these rookie defensemen we'd be icing require bigger contracts? We'll have trouble retaining all our assets. Then, one day, Gainey feels that we're close to a Cup, tosses away his two top picks for the difference maker (like he did for Tanguay). The year's a bust, [Tanguay] walks away at the end of the season and we have a weak draft. At the following draft, our picks don't turn out very well either. All of a sudden, there are no more cheap Higginses and Kostitsyns and Guis coming up through the system to play on Vinny's wing. We then proceed to become the Tampa Bay Lightning and have no use to put our superstar to. We at least should have a franchise goalie as well. Then factor in his contract: when Vinny's 38 years old and still being paid superstar money with a NMC, what are we going to do? What if his recent injuries turn out to be chronic? I still dont get how, even if your catastrophic scenario happens, we'd have more trouble retaining our assets if we have one player at 7M rather than 2 players making 8+ together. Habs have something like 30M$ cap room. Enter Vinny, Exit Markov, and we'd be left at 27 or 26. That's five 4M$ players, or eight 3-million dollar players. How does that precipitates us in a Dark Age? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 For one thing, our D would be Hamrlik at 5.5M, Gorges, possibly Schneider, and a bunch of rookies. Then who do we surround him with at forward? For now, we have the Kostitsyns, Latendresse, Higgins, D'Agostini and Paccioretty. But what about when these guys, as well as both our goalies next summer, as well as all these rookie defensemen we'd be icing require bigger contracts? We'll have trouble retaining all our assets. Then, one day, Gainey feels that we're close to a Cup, tosses away his two top picks for the difference maker (like he did for Tanguay). The year's a bust, [Tanguay] walks away at the end of the season and we have a weak draft. At the following draft, our picks don't turn out very well either. All of a sudden, there are no more cheap Higginses and Kostitsyns and Guis coming up through the system to play on Vinny's wing. We then proceed to become the Tampa Bay Lightning and have no use to put our superstar to. We at least should have a franchise goalie as well. Then factor in his contract: when Vinny's 38 years old and still being paid superstar money with a NMC, what are we going to do? What if his recent injuries turn out to be chronic? Well chicken little I do not think I have read that negative a post in quite some time. I am not sure we should get Vinny but holy smokes if we do te world ain't gonna end. You need to pour yourself a stiff one and ease up a little. :hlogo: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I still dont get how, even if your catastrophic scenario happens, we'd have more trouble retaining our assets if we have one player at 7M rather than 2 players making 8+ together. Habs have something like 30M$ cap room. Enter Vinny, Exit Markov, and we'd be left at 27 or 26. That's five 4M$ players, or eight 3-million dollar players. How does that precipitates us in a Dark Age? Couple of notes I'll add in here... I wrote an article a while back detailing how the Habs can't pick up too much in contracts beyond this season based on the expected cap decrease and RFA's after next season. There's about 11 million in space and 3 roster spots to fill, Vinny's 7.2 would take out a good chunk of that. If Tampa's moving him, they're taking less back, so that 11 million obviously drops. (For the record, re-signing Tanguay and Komisarek will eat up almost all of that UFA space for 2010-11, not sure anyone here realizes that yet...) The Lecavalier contract is structured so that the last couple years will be bought out with next to no hit on the cap as the deal is heavily front-loaded. By the time he hits 38, he'll be bought out and a good chuck of that cap hit will diminish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I agree that Vinny would cause grave cap problems sooner or later (the idiot Lightning NEVER should have agreed to that kind of term). But I also disagree that it is by definition folly to have a $7.5 million player on your payroll. Crosby's cap hit is significantly larger and the Penguins just won the Cup. Lecavalier is a bona fide franchise player - before his wrist injury he was widely regarded as a serious candidate for Best NHL Player - and there is nothing wrong in principle with paying franchise dollars for those kinds of players. The problem lies in giving that money to Daniel Briere or Scott Gomez. Worse comes to worst, you buy him out. Which we may have to do when he's washed up at 39 and making 7.5 mil. As for wingers, give him Tanguay and replace the Kostitsyns (assuming they're part of the deal) from within (e.g., Latendresse, Higgins), etc.. Our system supposedly has lots of good wingers, no? And add new parts as needed. It's never too hard to find decent second-tier forwards. I don't agree with trading Markov for him, though. Our D would be a total disaster. I believe a good defenceman is almost always worth more than a good forward, and that you can't win with bad D no matter who you have up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I agree that Vinny would cause grave cap problems sooner or later (the idiot Lightning NEVER should have agreed to that kind of term). But I also disagree that it is by definition folly to have a $7.5 million player on your payroll. Crosby's cap hit is significantly larger and the Penguins just won the Cup. Lecavalier is a bona fide franchise player - before his wrist injury he was widely regarded as a serious candidate for Best NHL Player - and there is nothing wrong in principle with paying franchise dollars for those kinds of players. The problem lies in giving that money to Daniel Briere or Scott Gomez. Worse comes to worst, you buy him out. Which we may have to do when he's washed up at 39 and making 7.5 mil. As for wingers, give him Tanguay and replace the Kostitsyns (assuming they're part of the deal) from within (e.g., Latendresse, Higgins), etc.. Our system supposedly has lots of good wingers, no? And add new parts as needed. It's never too hard to find decent second-tier forwards. I don't agree with trading Markov for him, though. Our D would be a total disaster. I believe a good defenceman is almost always worth more than a good forward, and that you can't win with bad D no matter who you have up front. For now we have decent wingers. But this strategy relies on us being continually good at drafting. If we have one or two bad drafts in a row, there goes our chance at a cheap, young supporting cast (and we can't afford to overpay for UFA). After next season, Lecavalier, Tanguay, Hamrlik and Price's contracts will combine for 22-23 million. The following season we have the ability to let Hamrlik walk... which leaves Josh Gorges as our #1 d-man? Which leads me to... Koz, if we're trading Markov we become in need of a new top pairing defenseman to replace him. Or are we going to go with Hamrlik, Gorges and the rookies? What's more likely is we throw the money at another UFA. (say, 5.75M for Komisarek, or 4.5M for Beauchemin). It's possible to build around a Vinny-Markov-Price core, if we can also get good drafting. But once we lose Markov (or Price) in the deal, we're likely screwed. It's just relocating our weakness (while hurting our cap situation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I wouldn't trade Markov for Lecavalier straight up (considering contracts). Pursuing Vinny will send us back into another Dark Age. I couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 For now we have decent wingers. But this strategy relies on us being continually good at drafting. If we have one or two bad drafts in a row, there goes our chance at a cheap, young supporting cast (and we can't afford to overpay for UFA). After next season, Lecavalier, Tanguay, Hamrlik and Price's contracts will combine for 22-23 million. The following season we have the ability to let Hamrlik walk... which leaves Josh Gorges as our #1 d-man? Which leads me to... Koz, if we're trading Markov we become in need of a new top pairing defenseman to replace him. Or are we going to go with Hamrlik, Gorges and the rookies? What's more likely is we throw the money at another UFA. (say, 5.75M for Komisarek, or 4.5M for Beauchemin). It's possible to build around a Vinny-Markov-Price core, if we can also get good drafting. But once we lose Markov (or Price) in the deal, we're likely screwed. It's just relocating our weakness (while hurting our cap situation). Yes, I understand all the points you're making BTH. Moving Markov to get Lecavalier relocates our weakness on D. No pain no gain. But it's worth it IMHO because: 1- We've gone nowhere with Markov on the roster. What I mean is: although his absence was always hard-felt, his presence also didnt get us over the edge. He's not a franchise player, doesnt have the impact or character of one. 2- We dont have a Vinny coming in the system; or anyone close. But we have 3-4 defensemen prospects who could one day compare to Markov. Off course, that is the worse case scenario. I'm sure Bob's trying his best to get the deal done without Markov included. Lawton acquired a bunch of D's last season, it's up to Bob to sell him someone else. As for the cap hit per dlbalr's calculations, we'd still be left with 4M$ for 2 spots. Considering all the players we've got out of the NHL (Pacioretty, Chipchura, Maxwell, Subban, Fisher, McDonagh, Fortier, Emelin, Kristo, Trunev, etc.) I would bet right now that by then we'd have cheap youth to fill those spots. If we dont, Timmins will need to be tarred and feathered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 As for the cap hit per dlbalr's calculations, we'd still be left with 4M$ for 2 spots. Considering all the players we've got out of the NHL (Pacioretty, Chipchura, Maxwell, Subban, Fisher, McDonagh, Fortier, Emelin, Kristo, Trunev, etc.) I would bet right now that by then we'd have cheap youth to fill those spots. If we dont, Timmins will need to be tarred and feathered. If memory serves me right, Pacioretty, Chipchura, Maxwell, Subban, Stewart, D'Agostini, and Weber already are factored into that calculation, so some of those other guys need to make it or really cheap vets need to be brought in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 2009 If memory serves me right, Pacioretty, Chipchura, Maxwell, Subban, Stewart, D'Agostini, and Weber already are factored into that calculation, so some of those other guys need to make it or really cheap vets need to be brought in. Factored in on their NHL or AHL salary? Because if it's the former there's not mass increase if they make the jump. (I might also have added Ryan White, Brock Trotter, Andrew Conboy in there) Still leaves our best prospect McDonagh, Fisher, Emelin, Fortier, Kristo, Paquet, Trunev, Quailer not under contract. I would guess -at worse- that McDonagh and Emelin (bring him in already) can challenge for a spot by 2010-2011. Fortier will also make the jump to the AHL next year. He's in the mold of Lapierre, but smarter, sort of like Patrice Bergeron or P-M Bouchard but without the offensive upside. Not the kind of player to take ages to reach the NHL, even if only in a 4th line/faceoff role. My darkhorse would be Trunev. Got NHL skating, shot and puckhandling skills already. Hopefully he comes over the N-A next season. He could get fastracked even faster than Sergei Kostitsyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 We have needed the #1 centre for years and years and years. How much longer do we have to wait Bob? Based on recent history I would say that Lecavalier gets traded to some other team. Riots and media frenzy break out in Montreal. As for Markov, he is amazing but we could trade him. There are available replacements out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAK Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) We have needed the #1 centre for years and years and years. How much longer do we have to wait Bob? Based on recent history I would say that Lecavalier gets traded to some other team. Riots and media frenzy break out in Montreal. As for Markov, he is amazing but we could trade him. There are available replacements out there. why would you trade Markov ?? he's the best deal in the NHL !! besides I dont see who could replace him. there isn't anybody in the system thats ready to pick it up!! Edited June 24, 2009 by marky_and_komi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) why would you trade Markov ?? he's the best deal in the NHL !! besides I dont see who could replace him. there isn't anybody in the system thats ready to pick it up!! Agreed. IF Bob trades Markov for that elusive C, then he absolutely MUST replace him with a legitimate #1 D. Otherwise we we will be complete and total crap. Anyone who denies that simply does not understand the importance of the defence corps to team success. And please...don't point to prospects. By the time they are NHL regulars Vinny will be in his mid-30s. Markov should be untouchable, therefore; not because he's a 'franchise player' but because he is irreplaceable except by some UFA signing that will cost $2-3 million more. Not how you build a team. Anyone else except Price is fair game, obviously, and everyone else is far more replaceable than Markov. Edited June 24, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I don't think we should trade Markov but there are replacements out there for him. Kaberle could be had. Bouwmeester could be had. Beauchemin could be had. I agree that Markov is elite and an amazing deal but to say he is untouchable is a matter of opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I wouldn't say anyone but Price is untouchable. Pacioretty the elusive power forward they were looking for is untouchable in my eyes. At this point i would consider Subban and McDonagh untouchable as well. Current roster players i agree most can be up for grabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.