Jump to content

Habs Offseason Moves


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As I've been replying to CC, I think you are correct Blue, that me and CC are really saying the same thing with different words. I just want Price signed so we can move on to new debates haha.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that Price should be 'underpaid' in the sense of being signed to some cut-rate deal. Remember, the figure I've been putting forward is 2.5 mil with gusts up to 2.75 to factor in taxes. I arrived at that conclusion by using Dan Ellis's new deal as a basis for comparison. They're both guys who have been in the league three years and have had good and bad moments, but Price is much younger and has a better overall profile than Ellis - hence the extra mil.

And because Price would be certifiably insane to sign long-term at 2.5, and the Habs have neither the cap room nor, hopefully, the stupidity to try and lock Price into a $5 million contract long term at this time, this will be a short term deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The cap won't matter in that situation, because the only way all those players get all those raises is if we win the cup.

Also the salary cap is always on the rise, so maybe by then we will have more wiggle room.

Why would the players only get raises if the habs win the cup???

-If Pouliot and Eller score 30+ goals they will get their money or have to be moved. $4M for 30+ goals is the market - possibly under market rates, given that the habs gave AK46 $3M for scoring 20+ goals as an RFA.

-Ditto with Avitsin, if he produces and doesnt' get a significnat increase, why would he stick around in the NHL??

-Given what RFA dmen are getting, if Subban turns into a 15-20 goal and 50-60 point dman he will get his money in his next contract. The kings are already expecting to have to pay Doughty and Johnson big money once their entry level deals are up.

-If Price is still here in 3 years he will be getting between $4M and $5.5M

-Gorges and Markov are UFA's next year. $5.5M for Markov is less then his current rate, while Gorges will more then double his current salary.

-In three years Weber or whoever the other Dman that steps up will get at least $2M

-IF Obyrne is still around or if someone else steps in that role, the minimum hit will be $1.5M.

-If maxpax produces he will also get an increase.

-Any rookies will be due rookie bonuses.

I really don't see why you would think players aren't going to get a raise unless the habs win the cup??? If that was the case, the leafs as a last place team wouldn't have been up against the cap. Hell even Edmonton was pretty close to the cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the players only get raises if the habs win the cup???

-If Pouliot and Eller score 30+ goals they will get their money or have to be moved. $4M for 30+ goals is the market - possibly under market rates, given that the habs gave AK46 $3M for scoring 20+ goals as an RFA.

-Ditto with Avitsin, if he produces and doesnt' get a significnat increase, why would he stick around in the NHL??

-Given what RFA dmen are getting, if Subban turns into a 15-20 goal and 50-60 point dman he will get his money in his next contract. The kings are already expecting to have to pay Doughty and Johnson big money once their entry level deals are up.

-If Price is still here in 3 years he will be getting between $4M and $5.5M

-Gorges and Markov are UFA's next year. $5.5M for Markov is less then his current rate, while Gorges will more then double his current salary.

-In three years Weber or whoever the other Dman that steps up will get at least $2M

-IF Obyrne is still around or if someone else steps in that role, the minimum hit will be $1.5M.

-If maxpax produces he will also get an increase.

-Any rookies will be due rookie bonuses.

I really don't see why you would think players aren't going to get a raise unless the habs win the cup??? If that was the case, the leafs as a last place team wouldn't have been up against the cap. Hell even Edmonton was pretty close to the cap.

All valid points, but hypothetical future cap issues are too easy to get tied up into knots about. The cap always (somehow) increases, players come and go, situations change. Consider that in 2007 and you'd never in a million years have imagined what the 2010 Habs would look like. As for the future, Hammer's monster contract will be off the books. Kostitsyn will either have finally put it together or been purged. The other core guys that you're so worried about are all quality players who will certainly be tradeable. (Even Gomez's attractiveness on the trading block increases by the day, because as the cap rises, so does the salary floor teams are required to pay; teams struggling to meet the floor will need to take on salary). There's no way you won't be able to dump those guys, if dumping them is what you have to do.

In short, whether we will be able to re-sign all our young guns in three years is the least of my concerns. Three years is an infinity in today's highly mobile NHL. And frankly, if our talent pool turns out to be good enough to make Gionta, Plekanec, Cammy and Gomez redundant I'd consider that to be the best Habs-related news in years. My unsolicited advice would to stop squinting off into the distance and focus on a shorter time-frame when it comes to the cap.

EDIT: you also need to consider the possibility of Kovalchuk-like, front-loaded long-term contracts. We could re-sign Markov to 20 years at a cap hit of 2.25 per season: http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-of-law.html :lol:

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the players only get raises if the habs win the cup???

-If Pouliot and Eller score 30+ goals they will get their money or have to be moved. $4M for 30+ goals is the market - possibly under market rates, given that the habs gave AK46 $3M for scoring 20+ goals as an RFA.

-Ditto with Avitsin, if he produces and doesnt' get a significnat increase, why would he stick around in the NHL??

-Given what RFA dmen are getting, if Subban turns into a 15-20 goal and 50-60 point dman he will get his money in his next contract. The kings are already expecting to have to pay Doughty and Johnson big money once their entry level deals are up.

-If Price is still here in 3 years he will be getting between $4M and $5.5M

-Gorges and Markov are UFA's next year. $5.5M for Markov is less then his current rate, while Gorges will more then double his current salary.

-In three years Weber or whoever the other Dman that steps up will get at least $2M

-IF Obyrne is still around or if someone else steps in that role, the minimum hit will be $1.5M.

-If maxpax produces he will also get an increase.

-Any rookies will be due rookie bonuses.

I really don't see why you would think players aren't going to get a raise unless the habs win the cup??? If that was the case, the leafs as a last place team wouldn't have been up against the cap. Hell even Edmonton was pretty close to the cap.

I don't think that the only way a player will get a raise is to win the cup. The problem with your assessment is that you have every single habs prospect meeting his full potential yet we don't move any of our older players to accommodate. If Pouliot and Eller both score thirty along with the big goals Gio, Cammi and (hopefully) AK will score, along with Plex and Gomer putting up good totals AND the 50-60 points you think Markov and Subban will score how will we not win the cup?

Edited by JacksonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: you also need to consider the possibility of Kovalchuk-like, front-loaded long-term contracts. We could re-sign Markov to 20 years at a cap hit of 2.25 per season: http://habsloyalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-of-law.html :lol:

The habs probably won't consider an option that all other successful teams are doing until the loophole is closed. Why they wouldn't have taken that approach last year with Cammerleri and Gionta is beyond me. Instead they ended up doing what no teams want to do anymore - offer a 35 year old Spacek a 3 year deal (can't count the Pronger deal, because the Flyers didn't seem to understand the rules well enough in their attempts to cirumvent the cap rules.

All valid points, but hypothetical future cap issues are too easy to get tied up into knots about. The cap always (somehow) increases, players come and go, situations change. Consider that in 2007 and you'd never in a million years have imagined what the 2010 Habs would look like. As for the future, Hammer's monster contract will be off the books. Kostitsyn will either have finally put it together or been purged. The other core guys that you're so worried about are all quality players who will certainly be tradeable. (Even Gomez's attractiveness on the trading block increases by the day, because as the cap rises, so does the salary floor teams are required to pay; teams struggling to meet the floor will need to take on salary). There's no way you won't be able to dump those guys, if dumping them is what you have to do.

In short, whether we will be able to re-sign all our young guns in three years is the least of my concerns. Three years is an infinity in today's highly mobile NHL. And frankly, if our talent pool turns out to be good enough to make Gionta, Plekanec, Cammy and Gomez redundant I'd consider that to be the best Habs-related news in years. My unsolicited advice would to stop squinting off into the distance and focus on a shorter time-frame when it comes to the cap.

BTW,

My orignal lineup from an earlier post had already factored in considering the cap situaiton 3 years from now that does not include AK46, Hammer or Spacek. Even if the cap is say $62M, these are the cap issue I still see:

Our big 5 contracts that will still be on the books:

Gomez - $7.2M

Cammilari - $6M

Gionta $5M

Plekanec - $5M

That's $23.2M for around 280 points of offence from the forwards.

In three years we are going to be in a tough situation if some of the kids do pan out and we have to resign them and the rest of the forwards and goalies for around $37M (assuming the salary cap keeps going up and the next collective bargaining doesn't end up with a reduced salary cap.

From the current players, lets say Price and Subban turn out to be studs we all want them to become and Markov and Gorges are resigned, we probalby have the following additions to the cap hit:

-Markov $5.5M - assuming he is signed for about the same salary

-Gorges $3M

-Subban $4M (will probably be a RFA offer sheet candidate, give the SJ offer)

-Price $4.5M

That's another $17M, which brings the cap hit to $40.2M for 8 players, leaving $21.8M to sign the following:

Fill out the top two lines two lines and one other center, as well as the defence:

-Lars Eller - $2.5M would be about the minimum, assuming he does become an impact player

-Pouliot - $4M (Would be a UFA)

-Avitsin - $2.5M- would be about the minimum, assuming he does become an impact player

-Paciroetty - $2M - assuming he becomes a 20/50 man (or if the habs have someone else with similar numbers)

-Weber/or another Dman $2M

-Tinordi - $850k

-Obyrne/replasment - $1.5M

That's a total of $17.35M, bring the total salary to $57.55m.

That leaves around $4.45M for five 3rd/4th line players, a back up goalie AND any bonus payments that rookies would be due (i.e. Tinordi, Leblanc, Kristo or others).

Edited by hab29RETIRED
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that the only way a player will get a raise is to win the cup. The problem with your assessment is that you have every single habs prospect meeting his full potential yet we don't move any of our older players to accommodate. If Pouliot and Eller both score thirty along with the big goals Gio, Cammi and (hopefully) AK will score, along with Plex and Gomer putting up good totals AND the 50-60 points you think Markov and Subban will score how will we not win the cup?

The problem with moving our older players is that I believe that Gomez, Pleks and Cammy have no trade clauses. Who would want Gomez at his salary???

If our players don't meet the their potential, its a moot point, since we will suck and gave up Halak for nothing. Traded by giving up a 2nd round pick for Tinordi, who doesn't pan out. lats was dumped for nothing.

My post was meant to be a response to all those praising the goat for his moves. If the young guys pan out, we probably can't afford them becasue of the ridicious signings from last year. If they don't then the love-in every one has with going along with the Goat is misplaced and we are in for more mid-level mediocrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The habs probably won't consider an option that all other successful teams are doing until the loophole is closed. Why they wouldn't have taken that approach last year with Cammerleri and Gionta is beyond me. Instead they ended up doing what no teams want to do anymore - offer a 35 year old Spacek a 3 year deal (can't count the Pronger deal, because the Flyers didn't seem to understand the rules well enough in their attempts to cirumvent the cap rules.

How long of a deal did you want Gionta and Cammalleri to sign? Heck, I'm still concerned the deals (particularly Gionta's) are too long as it is. Hypothetically speaking, even if the Habs wanted to do such a deal, so too does the player. Most of the crazy 10+ year cap friendly deals (aside from Hossa) are re-signings, players who want to stay with their current teams. This wasn't the case with Gionta/Cammalleri - why lock in for 10+ years in a market you're not overly familiar with (especially Cammalleri who had only played in the West)? With that in mind, you could argue the Habs haven't had the opportunity to do such a deal yet (assuming they wouldn't have wanted to do one with the likes of Koivu and Kovalev last season). Markov could be an option for a deal like that next offseason though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How long of a deal did you want Gionta and Cammalleri to sign? Heck, I'm still concerned the deals (particularly Gionta's) are too long as it is. Hypothetically speaking, even if the Habs wanted to do such a deal, so too does the player. Most of the crazy 10+ year cap friendly deals (aside from Hossa) are re-signings, players who want to stay with their current teams. This wasn't the case with Gionta/Cammalleri - why lock in for 10+ years in a market you're not overly familiar with (especially Cammalleri who had only played in the West)? With that in mind, you could argue the Habs haven't had the opportunity to do such a deal yet (assuming they wouldn't have wanted to do one with the likes of Koivu and Kovalev last season). Markov could be an option for a deal like that next offseason though.

I had a first had look at Cammeleri being in the west and he was more consistent then Iginla in his year in Calgary. I would have liked to seen a Hossa type deal where the cap was around $4.5M (given Hossa's production is higher).

As far as Gionta goes, If he could have been signed over 8-9 years to a front loaded contract for a cap hit under $3M, I'd be willing to do that for 8-9 years. If you have to move him, and his cap hit is much higher then what he is actually paid, you could always move him to a team that is close to or under the cap floor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a first had look at Cammeleri being in the west and he was more consistent then Iginla in his year in Calgary. I would have liked to seen a Hossa type deal where the cap was around $4.5M (given Hossa's production is higher).

As far as Gionta goes, If he could have been signed over 8-9 years to a front loaded contract for a cap hit under $3M, I'd be willing to do that for 8-9 years. If you have to move him, and his cap hit is much higher then what he is actually paid, you could always move him to a team that is close to or under the cap floor.

Would Gionta have been willing to do an 8-9 year deal though? The Habs would never buyout the rest of his deal (frontloaded contracts create huge cap hits on buyouts) so he's essentially stuck for the rest of his career in Montreal. What if he didn't like it here? Then a deal like that would be a disaster as he'd be untradeable. Gionta never would have signed a deal like that anywhere but New Jersey. With the deal as it is, he'll get most of the money he would in your scenario and still be young enough to get another year or two and net more $$ in the end.

As for Cammalleri, he was 27 when he signed. A deal like Hossa's means that they'd have to give him a 12-13 year contract. He's never played on an Eastern team before, who's to say he'll like Montreal? Like I said, there's a reason that the majority of these contracts are re-signings, it's rare that someone will commit 10+ years to a new city as if it doesn't work out, both sides are screwed for a long, long time.

For all we know, the Habs could have proposed these longterm deals to both these players. It takes two to tango and it would not have been in either's best interest to commit that long to a new team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would Gionta have been willing to do an 8-9 year deal though? The Habs would never buyout the rest of his deal (frontloaded contracts create huge cap hits on buyouts) so he's essentially stuck for the rest of his career in Montreal. What if he didn't like it here? Then a deal like that would be a disaster as he'd be untradeable. Gionta never would have signed a deal like that anywhere but New Jersey. With the deal as it is, he'll get most of the money he would in your scenario and still be young enough to get another year or two and net more $$ in the end.

As for Cammalleri, he was 27 when he signed. A deal like Hossa's means that they'd have to give him a 12-13 year contract. He's never played on an Eastern team before, who's to say he'll like Montreal? Like I said, there's a reason that the majority of these contracts are re-signings, it's rare that someone will commit 10+ years to a new city as if it doesn't work out, both sides are screwed for a long, long time.

For all we know, the Habs could have proposed these longterm deals to both these players. It takes two to tango and it would not have been in either's best interest to commit that long to a new team.

agreed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
How long of a deal did you want Gionta and Cammalleri to sign? Heck, I'm still concerned the deals (particularly Gionta's) are too long as it is. Hypothetically speaking, even if the Habs wanted to do such a deal, so too does the player. Most of the crazy 10+ year cap friendly deals (aside from Hossa) are re-signings, players who want to stay with their current teams. This wasn't the case with Gionta/Cammalleri - why lock in for 10+ years in a market you're not overly familiar with (especially Cammalleri who had only played in the West)? With that in mind, you could argue the Habs haven't had the opportunity to do such a deal yet (assuming they wouldn't have wanted to do one with the likes of Koivu and Kovalev last season). Markov could be an option for a deal like that next offseason though.

Absolutely, take Cammy out of picture because he and Markov are franchise players, so you don't mind locking them up longer. Gionta and Gomez are NOT. Three years would have been lots. The biggest problem is the No Trade Clause which we seem to pass out freely. All that though, is old hat. I be more concerned with why they haven't signed Price and Trotter. Interesting article in THN concerning Molson taking over hockey decisions. I just see more and more RED FLAGS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting article in THN concerning Molson taking over hockey decisions. I just see more and more RED FLAGS.

What did the article say? You're right about red flags (the purge of scouts - still not fixed? - is still the star attraction on this front), and if ownership really is muscling in on hockey decisions, that is pretty much a guarantee of slow disaster for years to come. But was this just an off-handed remark within the article - the reporter's impression, which is probably just rooted in innuendo and ignorance as most sports journalists' opinions are - or was it the result of some actual research, with sources and evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What did the article say? You're right about red flags (the purge of scouts - still not fixed? - is still the star attraction on this front), and if ownership really is muscling in on hockey decisions, that is pretty much a guarantee of slow disaster for years to come. But was this just an off-handed remark within the article - the reporter's impression, which is probably just rooted in innuendo and ignorance as most sports journalists' opinions are - or was it the result of some actual research, with sources and evidence?

Devil's advocate to this would be the fact that he let Gauthier trade Halak. A meddling owner would NEVER trade a player like that at the height of his popularity. They would do the exact opposite and trade the budding prospect before he emerges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What did the article say? You're right about red flags (the purge of scouts - still not fixed? - is still the star attraction on this front), and if ownership really is muscling in on hockey decisions, that is pretty much a guarantee of slow disaster for years to come. But was this just an off-handed remark within the article - the reporter's impression, which is probably just rooted in innuendo and ignorance as most sports journalists' opinions are - or was it the result of some actual research, with sources and evidence?

I would not worry that much about junior scouts situation not fixed until the hockey season starts for the juniors...

Link to post
Share on other sites

CC- Article written by Ken Cambell from THNs- removal of pres Boivin- bemoans French and English media for lack of coverage- his case is that Boivin tripled the value of franchise in his tenure and that Molson has no experience running big company at any level- believes Boivin will be gone by Christmas despite the year roll over window- believes other executives loyal to Boivin will leave also

Did we not just see an executive bolt to Tampa?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brock Trotter reportedly signs a 1 year deal with incentives with Dinamo Riga of the KHL.

That's disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's disappointing.

At first that was my opinion but if true (and I have reason to believe it is), this could be a good thing. Trotter has to clear waivers this season and really doesn't have a fit with the way the roster is shaping up. If the alternative is lose him on waivers (some suggest to Tampa) or to the KHL, I'll take the latter as the Habs still hold Trotter's rights that way (until he's 27). It's a 1 year deal worth around $250k, let him go play at a higher level and re-evaluate the situation next season. He has proven enough in Hamilton, let's see if this brings him closer to taking the next step to crack Montreal's roster in 2011-12.

Link to post
Share on other sites
At first that was my opinion but if true (and I have reason to believe it is), this could be a good thing. Trotter has to clear waivers this season and really doesn't have a fit with the way the roster is shaping up. If the alternative is lose him on waivers (some suggest to Tampa) or to the KHL, I'll take the latter as the Habs still hold Trotter's rights that way (until he's 27). It's a 1 year deal worth around $250k, let him go play at a higher level and re-evaluate the situation next season. He has proven enough in Hamilton, let's see if this brings him closer to taking the next step to crack Montreal's roster in 2011-12.

I suppose that's true. It just seems like our depth has taken a bit of a hit this off-season, but like you propose, this could turn out well for us in the long run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose that's true. It just seems like our depth has taken a bit of a hit this off-season, but like you propose, this could turn out well for us in the long run.

Veteran depth (Moore, Metropolit, Mara, etc) have taken a hit, they're just being replaced by younger depth. Interestingly enough, Hamilton (by my count) has extra forwards already when you consider players like Avtsin (and former Hab prospect Jimmy Bonneau) signing, plus full seasons from Fortier/Masse (injuries), Palushaj (late season acquisition), and Dumont/Bishop (late signings). The depth is still there which makes this a little easier to swallow.

Hopefully it's just a 1 year thing (somewhat like Andre Benoit did a while back, leave the Habs after his entry-level play overseas at seemingly a higher level) and not a move like Perezhogin or Degon (I liked him in Hamilton, I really did...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Veteran depth (Moore, Metropolit, Mara, etc) have taken a hit, they're just being replaced by younger depth. Interestingly enough, Hamilton (by my count) has extra forwards already when you consider players like Avtsin (and former Hab prospect Jimmy Bonneau) signing, plus full seasons from Fortier/Masse (injuries), Palushaj (late season acquisition), and Dumont/Bishop (late signings). The depth is still there which makes this a little easier to swallow.

Hopefully it's just a 1 year thing (somewhat like Andre Benoit did a while back, leave the Habs after his entry-level play overseas at seemingly a higher level) and not a move like Perezhogin or Degon (I liked him in Hamilton, I really did...)

Yeh, I really liked Zhogs too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
About Zhogs...there any chance we could ever get him back? You mentioned we hold Trotters rights til he's 27?

Likely not as Perezhogin becomes a UFA next July (turns 27). As long as the the Habs give Trotter a QO each year, they'd hold his rights. It's somewhat moot as I expect him back in North America next season anyways...unless he does terrible in the KHL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CC- Article written by Ken Cambell from THNs- removal of pres Boivin- bemoans French and English media for lack of coverage- his case is that Boivin tripled the value of franchise in his tenure and that Molson has no experience running big company at any level- believes Boivin will be gone by Christmas despite the year roll over window- believes other executives loyal to Boivin will leave also

Did we not just see an executive bolt to Tampa?

We did (Brisebois) but it also leaked out that he wanted to leave last offseason, so I don't think the two are related. I just got my copy of THN and read the article myself.

What the article doesn't mention are the times where Boivin had the uncanny knack of putting his foot in his mouth, discussing potential personnel decisions, of which he had no say in (Gainey had full autonomy). That's why the fans aren't saying too much negative when you consider that with the fact that most people really don't know what his role was.

The most interesting thing that came from this was essentially the confirmation that this was not Boivin's idea and that he wasn't too thrilled about it. It had been speculated when it happened but now we know that it wasn't a mutual parting (despite Boivin staying on as a board member).

Link to post
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...