Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

Money to be paid out implies an insurance thing which is what Hughes was hinting at in his presser the other day.

 

Would be nice to move his contract off the cap ... but only a first step to HuGo having any cap flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 21.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • dlbalr

    1421

  • The Chicoutimi Cucumber

    1386

  • DON

    919

  • Commandant

    1235

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

Would be nice to move his contract off the cap ... but only a first step to HuGo having any cap flexibility.

As long Price doesn't go on LTIR next season ... 😓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

As long Price doesn't go on LTIR next season ... 😓

Players need only go on LTIR if the teams' total cap hit would exceed the ceiling ...  ***IF*** Weber's deal gets moved the Habs would currently have $8.8M in cap space even with Price's contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Players need only go on LTIR if the teams' total cap hit would exceed the ceiling ...  ***IF*** Weber's deal gets moved the Habs would currently have $8.8M in cap space even with Price's contract.

True. But that would mean effectively operating with a $72M cap when other teams have $82.5M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

True. But that would mean effectively operating with a $72M cap when other teams have $82.5M.

But building a roster with $93M in cap hit so that Price's (presumed) LTIR is maximized creates roster inflexibility and issues with ELC bonuses .... besides, next season should not a year to be spending to the cap (excluding LTIR) anyway (IMO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

 .... besides, next season should not a year to be spending to the cap (excluding LTIR) anyway (IMO).

 

Agreed, next year should be a year to try and create as much flexibility as they can (get rid of bad contracts if possible) so when they are ready to contend, they can go after the right free agent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Agreed, next year should be a year to try and create as much flexibility as they can (get rid of bad contracts if possible) so when they are ready to contend, they can go after the right free agent. 

That’s what I’d like to see. Get some cheap signings to provide good mentoring and leadership to develop the kids the next two years, and than go for it. I don’t see many, it any if the 27+ age group being a significant part of a contenting team in 3-4 years - assuming of course we out together a solid team capable of producing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreger reporting Weber’s contract will be traded to Arizona in the off-season.  The hold up at the deadline was money to be paid out, which I’m assuming is the bonuses on July 1st.

 

Are the Habs expected to get a return in this or basically pay Arizona to take the contract off the books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

Dreger reporting Weber’s contract will be traded to Arizona in the off-season.  The hold up at the deadline was money to be paid out, which I’m assuming is the bonuses on July 1st.

 

Are the Habs expected to get a return in this or basically pay Arizona to take the contract off the books?

 

It was insurance money that was the issue.  The Habs had paid Weber and needed to be reimbursed by the insurance company and that was complicated if he moved mid season.

 

The Habs will pay arizona.  How much remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

It was insurance money that was the issue.  The Habs had paid Weber and needed to be reimbursed by the insurance company and that was complicated if he moved mid season.

 

The Habs will pay arizona.  How much remains to be seen.

 

You would think the Habs wouldn't have to pay much because is there really a big advantage in getting him off the books as opposed to just having him on LTIR if he is not going to play again?   Does their cap flexibility change at all?  Just asking as I am not sure of the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That cap flexibility depends on whether a certain Habs superstar goalie ends up on LTIR next year ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

You would think the Habs wouldn't have to pay much because is there really a big advantage in getting him off the books as opposed to just having him on LTIR if he is not going to play again?   Does their cap flexibility change at all?  Just asking as I am not sure of the answer.

 

Supply and demand though.  Arizona might be the only NHL team capable of taking this contract, meaning that they will charge for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Supply and demand though.  Arizona might be the only NHL team capable of taking this contract, meaning that they will charge for it. 

 

True, Arizona is almost certainly the only team capable of taking it on.  My main point is what does Montreal gain getting rid of the contract compared to having him on LTIR from a cap perspective.  I don't see a big difference unless I am missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Supply and demand though.  Arizona might be the only NHL team capable of taking this contract, meaning that they will charge for it. 

Don’t they also need a contract like that to get to the floor though? That should reduce the cost. I think there is mutual benefit in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

True, Arizona is almost certainly the only team capable of taking it on.  My main point is what does Montreal gain getting rid of the contract compared to having him on LTIR from a cap perspective.  I don't see a big difference unless I am missing something.

That is the primary utility for them ... what also makes Weber very attractive is that the $31.42857M in AAV over 4 years will only cost them $5M in real money out of the owners' pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Don’t they also need a contract like that to get to the floor though? That should reduce the cost. I think there is mutual benefit in this situation.

 

Supply/Demand.  We arent the only team that needs to dump money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Supply/Demand.  We arent the only team that needs to dump money. 

But Weber undoubtedly offers one of, if not the, the highest AAV gained to actual cash paid ratios ... also important to "floor teams" ... or at least their owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hughes addresses a few "rumours" topics

 

Lots of teams calling about Anderson ... no trade shows how much we like Josh and he is part of the team ... BUT ... doesn't say he won't be traded ... trying to drive up the price?

 

No imminent trade for Petry but doesn't mean something couldn't happen between now and the draft ... receiving more calls on Petry this week than last

 

Not the plan to deal draft picks to move pricey contracts

 

Evaluating all options to create cap space ... intention not to trade Dadonov (I take that to mean this summer), plan is that he will play for the Habs ... believe he can add some offence.

 

Didn't want to risk having $20M on LTIR if Carey can't play (obviously commenting on why Weber was traded)

 

Mailloux will be in Montreal for several weeks ... want him to come to training camp in order to see how he "acts" with other prospects (expect he means on-ice, but could also mean the inter-personal aspect)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of rumours seem to be swirling around Josh Anderson. I can understand trading him, and that’s not a great contract, but in a way it’d be too bad - I like Josh. https://thehockeynews.com/news/montreal-canadiens-getting-calls-about-josh-anderson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

A lot of rumours seem to be swirling around Josh Anderson. I can understand trading him, and that’s not a great contract, but in a way it’d be too bad - I like Josh. https://thehockeynews.com/news/montreal-canadiens-getting-calls-about-josh-anderson

One of the Habs I've enjoyed watching the most in a long time... when he's on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Plutarch said:

One of the Habs I've enjoyed watching the most in a long time... when he's on.

Agree.

 

Just wish he was couple years younger and then would be a perfect fit.

 

But, maybe can turn him into a younger prospect/pick and cut some more $$ off the cap, not that i want to see him dealt, but Lebrun saying 5 or 6 teams have been inquiring about Anderson, so Hughes should be able to get a good return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

A lot of rumours seem to be swirling around Josh Anderson. I can understand trading him, and that’s not a great contract, but in a way it’d be too bad - I like Josh. https://thehockeynews.com/news/montreal-canadiens-getting-calls-about-josh-anderson

 

I don't know that the contract is bad.  He's in demand and I think we are going to get a good package here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

I don't know that the contract is bad.  He's in demand and I think we are going to get a good package here. 

 

I don't think it's a bad contract.  If Josh was a UFA he would easily get at least that amount. I think the fact that Hughes is mentioning that he is getting a lot of calls for him tells me he is seriously thinking of trading him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've seen numerous strange trade proposals involving Anderson too.  Most were silly, but a couple were interesting.

 

I wonder if it would be possible to get the 2nd pick too?  ex:  trade Anderson, get 2nd pick, draft the Slovak to replace him and save 4.5 mil/yr.  That could also be done using 1st pick.

 

39 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

I don't know that the contract is bad.  He's in demand and I think we are going to get a good package here. 

 

You're right, his contract is debatable at this point.  However, as time goes on, the length of his contract will likely make it a crappy contract. 

 

I really dont want to see him traded - I love him; but some interesting and highly beneficial things could happen if his is. 

 

 

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.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...