hab29RETIRED Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 On 12/15/2023 at 9:41 AM, GHT120 said: Think our disagreement is solely regarding timing ... I think they still need another year to focus on developing the defence and bringing in youngsters up front ... I see adding veterans next summer for the purpose of making the 24/25 playoffs as counterproductive ... now come trade deadline 2025, there may be a different perspective. But time will tell which approach HuGo decide to take. Agree. The number of unmoveable contracts really limits our ability to accelerate the rebuild. At least by 25-26c we will be rid of a lot of the bad contacts - other than the unmovable ones like Gallagher’s deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 7 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said: Agree. The number of unliveable contracts really limits our ability to accelerate the rebuild. At least by 25-26c we will be rid of a lot of the bad contacts - other than the unmovable ones like Gallagher’s deal. Isnt there always bad contracts on every team all the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, DON said: Isnt there always bad contracts on every team all the time? Yeah. It would be nice to live in a utopia where we have zero bad contracts, but the reality is HuGo will probably end up accumulating a couple of their own as the team pivots over to actually wanting to compete. Once you’re trying to win, you tend to find yourself in the situation of needing either to retain an important veteran, or acquire an important veteran - and in that context the player has you by the nuts. You accept some pain on the back end of the deal for what you hope will be full value on the front end. I don’t know whether our bad contracts impede our ability to “accelerate” a rebuild. If by that we mean signing Nylander, then probably yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 4 hours ago, DON said: Isnt there always bad contracts on every team all the time? I think you are fairly accurate with that statement. It's hard to have a perfect record when you are projecting how a player turns out at contract time. I think the large majority of teams have at least 1 contract they want back. One exception may be the Bruins who have done a pretty darn good job of not over paying and their one big free agent signing (Chara) was very astute, they got a lot of great mileage out of that guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 5 hours ago, DON said: Isnt there always bad contracts on every team all the time? We have a lot though. Gallagher, Dvorak, Armia, Price, Anderson, for me it would also include Savard. While we can LTIR Price, it does limit our ability in the offseason when we will be looking to sign people and spend to the cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Dvorak and Armia are moderate overpays with reasonable term. Price would not be a bad contract had he been able stay healthy. Gallagher was a bigger mistake, yes. Actual problem contracts, given that Price is on LTIR, we only have a few. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 23 minutes ago, tomh009 said: Dvorak and Armia are moderate overpays with reasonable term. Price would not be a bad contract had he been able stay healthy. Gallagher was a bigger mistake, yes. Actual problem contracts, given that Price is on LTIR, we only have a few. I’d say Dvorak is a double pay, and Armia at least a $1M more than he should have been offered - I would have preferred to give his salary and term to Lekhonan and let Armia walk. He’s always been a show up less than he 25% of the games he plays guy. when you keep paying extra to 3rd and 4th liners, at the end of the day it limits your ability to sign actual quality players. We may have one LTIR - but it’s a huge contract with a lot of term. That’s really going to limit off-season maneuverability when we will want to add, and spend to the cap. His LTR is like having 2.5 players on LTIR. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 the likelihood is that we have one more year of price after this one. I bet we pay his 5million bonus on July 1st 2025 and then trade him to Arizona or some other team who eat the cap hit whil only owing like 400,000 in real cash, cause 80% of his salary will be covered by insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Like a lot of things in life it's easier to look back in the rear view mirror and determine which contracts are bad although some are perhaps a little easier to predict than others. I think many on this board were concerned about the term on Gallagher's contract given his style of play. Perhaps MB should have listened to himself when he (I think he was joking) talked about loyalty and a dog. He was far too generous to Gally with the term. It's usually the term that's the killer. Others are a lot harder to predict. When Dvorak signed his 6 year 4.4m/year contract with Arizona he was 22 coming off a season where he had 15 goals and 22 assists on a really bad team. It was reasonable for Arizona to project he could be a 20-25 goal guy and maybe 50-60 points in which case that contract COULD have looked very team friendly especially with a rising cap. He peaked at 18 goals the following year. He scored 17 in 56 games the year after so it seemed the potential was there but it's been downhill since then. It's hard for teams to get it right all the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 24 minutes ago, Commandant said: the likelihood is that we have one more year of price after this one. I bet we pay his 5million bonus on July 1st 2025 and then trade him to Arizona or some other team who eat the cap hit whil only owing like 400,000 in real cash, cause 80% of his salary will be covered by insurance. Quite possible ... although I believe the $5M will remain on the Habs cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 13 minutes ago, GHT120 said: Quite possible ... although I believe the $5M will remain on the Habs cap. Nope.... the cap hit goes to his new team even if the Habs pay the bonus. The thing with bonuses is they arent subject to the 66% calculation for a buyout, but if traded in summer the entire 10.5 cap hit goes to the new team. Also my bad here, but its a 5.5 million bonus and 2 million in salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 57 minutes ago, Commandant said: the likelihood is that we have one more year of price after this one. I bet we pay his 5million bonus on July 1st 2025 and then trade him to Arizona or some other team who eat the cap hit whil only owing like 400,000 in real cash, cause 80% of his salary will be covered by insurance. That may be an option if Arizona is still around. However, they could finally move if they don’t get a rink deal worded out. Salt Lake City could be their new home for that season and I can’t see a new over with money wanting to have dead cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 8 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: That may be an option if Arizona is still around. However, they could finally move if they don’t get a rink deal worded out. Salt Lake City could be their new home for that season and I can’t see a new over with money wanting to have dead cap space. There will always be a rebuilding team that is willing to take on a big cap hit while paying out little in real money.... as the actual dollars are small, the draft pick to get rid of him will not be significant... think like a 3rd or 4th at most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Will Dvorak's injury impact Monahan's availability to a contender? I am guessing no, as Habs only play 19 games after the trade deadline and maybe a Laval centre can fill in on 4th line to finish off season? Canadiens’ Sean Monahan is about to get more important in Christian Dvorak’s absence - The Athletic "But what Dvorak also provided to Canadiens management was insurance in the event Monahan would be traded at the deadline, which is just over two months away. And it is worth wondering if Dvorak’s injury has made Monahan too important to the Canadiens for them to trade." NHL trade board 2.0: Jake Guentzel, John Gibson and other new targets join Chris Johnston’s list - The Athletic Has 3 habs on list; Allen at 4 Monahan 8 Matheson 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 6 minutes ago, DON said: Will Dvorak's injury impact Monahan's availability to a contender? I am guessing no, as Habs only play 19 games after the trade deadline and maybe a Laval centre can fill in on 4th line to finish off season? Canadiens’ Sean Monahan is about to get more important in Christian Dvorak’s absence - The Athletic "But what Dvorak also provided to Canadiens management was insurance in the event Monahan would be traded at the deadline, which is just over two months away. And it is worth wondering if Dvorak’s injury has made Monahan too important to the Canadiens for them to trade." That seems like a silly statement in the article. We are not a playoff team. We will not make the playoffs. If we get offered a 1st+ for Monohan we have to move him. If the offers aren’t that great and he is willing to sign a 2 or 3 year deal at reasonable rate - under $4m, that is the only scenario I’d keep him. if we move him, we bring in Anderson, or someone else from Laval. But you don’t hang on to Monohan, nice w might finish 27th instead of 24th without him, unless you have him signed to a reasonable short term deal. If we get a good offer, we have to move him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 6 minutes ago, DON said: Will Dvorak's injury impact Monahan's availability to a contender? I am guessing no, as Habs only play 19 games after the trade deadline and maybe a Laval centre can fill in on 4th line to finish off season? Canadiens’ Sean Monahan is about to get more important in Christian Dvorak’s absence - The Athletic "But what Dvorak also provided to Canadiens management was insurance in the event Monahan would be traded at the deadline, which is just over two months away. And it is worth wondering if Dvorak’s injury has made Monahan too important to the Canadiens for them to trade." OR ... they could take back a pending UFA centre in the deal, or as the "3rd team" in another trade to make use of their LTIR cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 6 minutes ago, GHT120 said: OR ... they could take back a pending UFA centre in the deal, or as the "3rd team" in another trade to make use of their LTIR cap space. Yup, thought similar. Anyways, assume Hughes will move him... if he can just stay healthy for next 10 weeks (he 'seems' a bit off for awhile now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 7 minutes ago, DON said: Yup, thought similar. Anyways, assume Hughes will move him... if he can just stay healthy for next 10 weeks (he 'seems' a bit off for awhile now). I-M-O they only way they don't move him is if they extend him ... which I hope they don't (unless PERHAPS it is another year @ $2 million, which seems unlikely). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 43 minutes ago, GHT120 said: OR ... they could take back a pending UFA centre in the deal, or as the "3rd team" in another trade to make use of their LTIR cap space. 100% agree. The dumb thing to do is try and trade for someone to fill Dvorak’s spot and waste a roster spot to fill a hole in a development season. 34 minutes ago, DON said: Yup, thought similar. Anyways, assume Hughes will move him... if he can just stay healthy for next 10 weeks (he 'seems' a bit off for awhile now). I’m hoping some team will wan to make a move earlier. There are a lot of teams that could use guys like Savard and Monohan. We may be able to get two first round picks +, or equivalent level of high end prospects for either - especially with 50% retention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 I agree with most of the posts here, if you get a 1st for Monahan you move him and figure out a way to fill in the spot after. The Habs are still in rebuild mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said: I’m hoping some team will wan to make a move earlier. There are a lot of teams that could use guys like Savard and Monohan. We may be able to get two first round picks +, or equivalent level of high end prospects for either - especially with 50% retention. There's only one retention slot left, they can't retain on both. Retention or not, I don't expect Monahan will bring back a first-rounder or a high-end prospect with his production starting to slide fairly quickly. A 2nd and a lesser pick is where I think his market lands. Savard's a weird one as I'm not sure the Habs want to retain there, burning a second slot for next year. But if they did, I think he could get a first if the demand for RDs is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 2 hours ago, dlbalr said: There's only one retention slot left, they can't retain on both. Retention or not, I don't expect Monahan will bring back a first-rounder or a high-end prospect with his production starting to slide fairly quickly. A 2nd and a lesser pick is where I think his market lands. Savard's a weird one as I'm not sure the Habs want to retain there, burning a second slot for next year. But if they did, I think he could get a first if the demand for RDs is there. For either of them, also taking back an expiring contract (or two) that the other team doesn't want, in order to give the other team more deadline flexibility, would likely boost their value ... but have to agree, as a RHD who has won a Cup there would likely be interest in Savard ... heard some "expert" opining on TSN690 (don't recall which guest) that because of his relatively reasonable contract, despite the second year some teams might actually look at DS as a "double rental" ... also agree that I doubt Hughes wants to use up a second retention slot for 24-24 unless the return was exceptional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 3 hours ago, dlbalr said: Savard's a weird one as I'm not sure the Habs want to retain there, burning a second slot for next year. But if they did, I think he could get a first if the demand for RDs is there. I doubt Montréal would have to retain to move Savard this year. Typically centers and RD are premium positions. They are always in demand and it's very hard for that market to get flooded. I would imagine with goalies is high demand this season that if Hughes uses the last retention slot on a non-expiring contract, it will be on Allen. The problem with any Allen trade is the longer it takes to make, the less desirable and return it will be in the current market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 6 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said: I doubt Montréal would have to retain to move Savard this year. Typically centers and RD are premium positions. They are always in demand and it's very hard for that market to get flooded. There's a move to be made without retaining on Savard. But there's a better one with retaining and that's the trade-off they'll have to consider with their last slot as it'll apply to a few others as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 2 hours ago, dlbalr said: There's a move to be made without retaining on Savard. But there's a better one with retaining and that's the trade-off they'll have to consider with their last slot as it'll apply to a few others as well. Agreed 100% Savard with a cap hit of 3.5 mill a season and Savard with a cap hit of 1.75 mill a season are vastly different values. 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.