Vanek traded to Montreal

[Neech]

On paper, we look like the clearcut 3rd-best team in the East, especially with Tampa taking a step back. A scoring winger with size... I thought they didn't exist.

It remains to be seen whose deadline deals will work out the best. Ottawa got Hemsky for a song and he got four assists today.

[habs rule]

But, 99% of time it is eve more overheated spin to the Negative on almost every thread, so it is all good and any optimists are always welcome change to hear from.

My expectations have ramped up a bit and I thought even before Vanek, that Habs could give any team a good series, if all the stars aligned.

If not being blind to the short "a little pun" comings of this team is being negative then I have been negative because I have been screaming for 2 years that we need scoring. Now we finally have a non-smurf right winger who can score. I am much more optomistic now.

[DON]

If not being blind to the short "a little pun" comings of this team is being negative then I have been negative because I have been screaming for 2 years that we need scoring. Now we finally have a non-smurf right winger who can score. I am much more optomistic now.

Negative criticism isn't any worse/better than unrealistic positive fanatics, but, just seems nice that 95%+ of us feel Vanek deal was very good and that is nice for a change, that's all..

[Chris]

Great move. Except Vanek is a LW.

I actually hope he scores some points, likes the team and considers re-signing. It's a long shot but winning and money has a way of changing people's minds

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Well, see Boone's piece today at H I/O for just the sort of thing I had in mind when I expressed some concern about hyper-expectations. The Habs, he intones, are 0-2 since acquiring Vanek. Maybe Vanek can help, but his linemates aren't Tavares and Okposo anymore (the implication being, maybe he won't be as effective here). The road trip exposes the Habs as nowhere near real contenders. Etc., etc.. It's typical, short-sighted negativity of the sort that so easily snowballs in Habsland.

I liked what Therrien said when he heard the news about the acquisition. He (rightly) hailed it as a major move but also emphasized that the team had to keep playing the same way and doing the right things. In other words, Vanek can only be an important additional piece to a sound foundation; he is not the foundation itself.

Apart from fan expectations rebounding to perverse effect and creating needless pressures and negativity on Vanek and the whole team, there are two issues. One is the "chemistry experiment" factor, where Vanek has to be given time to gel with his new teammates. If he isn't given this time to get comfortable, he will never fit in and will walk in summer. The other is the "team concept" problem, whereby a team that gets a shiny new star (or has a star returning from injury) actually suffers a let-down because the other players unintentionally take their feet off the accelerator due to the fact that, on some level, they assume the new star's job is to pick up the slack.

I'm not saying that any of these things are happening, because if you ask me the team's main problem right now is an injured Price and a brutal, murderous schedule. But you can see hints of the first problem (fan expectations) already.

[Chris]

Yep, tough schedule. I like the pickup of Vanek obviously, but I think I would be trying him with a few line combos as the season wears down. I just don't think he fits with Pleks and gionta.

Try him with more talented offensive guys.

[DON]

4 weeks and 16 game to go, before important season begins.

Lots of time to get playoff lineup sorted out.

[alfredoh2009]

seems they are playing like when Parros first started, expecting "him" to do all of the policing and stopping being aggressive. With Vanek. it seems like the time is expecting Vanek to carry the scoring on his shoulders for the team... Wednesday's game should give a better idea of what to expect.

[KoRP]

A practice or two will help, and so will off till Wednesday. If I were to play Vanek with Plek, the line wouldn't have Gionta on the other wing, Galchenyuk would be my first choice to play with Vanek, skill with skill. Doesn't matter, MT will never keep too much the same I'm sure

The return of Price will bring it all together! A win over the Bruins and happy would be restored....

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I hate losing to San Jose because I hate Joe Thornton but that looked like a game where Montreal had no energy and just dealt with a lot of bad bounces. Put Price in net, give the team a few days rest with Vanek gelling and comfortable? That game wouldn't have been out of reach.

[habs rule]

The team is having their team picture taken tomorrow. I wonder how much per copy they charge the players? OH that's right the ghost/goat is gone. I bet ya cookies aree free again too.

[ch_nl]

Looking forward to the Boston game tonight. Didn't see the last one, so this will be my first "Vanek game".

Just wanted to comment on that trade as well...

It's a steal! Sure, Collberg did put up some numbers at the Juniors, but I imagine Bergevin saw the same thing as I. Collberg won't make it to the NHL. He played on a line with fellow teammates from Frölunda Wennberg and Johnsson whom in my opinion has much more upside. Im not a pro scout, but I have seen him play enough to be determined in my opinion. A career Swedish Hockey Leauge player. Not an impact player in the NHL.

Jacob de la Rose, on the other hand will most likely center a third line in the NHL.

Anyway, with that said, the Vanek trade is one of the best acquisition in years. Habs now has all the ingredients to be a contender. A great goalie, a Norris winner and a prime goal-getter.

[l<OV4L3V]

Very small sample size to judge Thomas Vanek. I think he is worth a look into inking the next 3 seasons.

[hab29RETIRED]

He's a UFA. He will be looking for a 6 to 7 year deal. I think the only we we'd be able to sign him is by offering him 8 years, since no when else can. That's way too long to commit to a guy his age.

Very small sample size to judge Thomas Vanek. I think he is worth a look into inking the next 3 seasons.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

You will have to overpay in either money or term for ANY UFA. That is reality.

Vanek fits a fundamental organizational need for a big scoring winger. We have nothing like him in the system. We will need someone like him in order to contend.

Therefore, overpaying is a calculated risk intended to fill a basic and otherwise unfillable hole. That would a defensible move no matter how terrible it looks in the last year or two of the deal.

[hab29RETIRED]

You will have to overpay in either money or term for ANY UFA. That is reality.

Vanek fits a fundamental organizational need for a big scoring winger. We have nothing like him in the system. We will need someone like him in order to contend.

Therefore, overpaying is a calculated risk intended to fill a basic and otherwise unfillable hole. That would a defensible move no matter how terrible it looks in the last year or two of the deal.

I'd want to know what the cap is going to be AND move guys like DD and Gorges first and then use that money on Vanek. But the term would be the question. Most UFA's are 27 or 28. Signing them to a 7 yr deal means the last year of the deal will be around 35 years old. Vanek is going to turn 31. Signing him would probably require 8 years which the current team is allowed to go to. That means, he will be around 39 by the end of the deal. So it's probably over-paying him for at least 3 years of the deal.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

No question that the deal would get worse as Vanek ages. The question is what the alternative is. We will need at least one impact winger if we want to contend within the next 2-3 years. No amount of "cap management" will change that. If there is a better UFA on which we can go all in, then I agree we should do that. If there isn't, then I have no problem with the overpay.

[hab29RETIRED]

No question that the deal would get worse as Vanek ages. The question is what the alternative is. We will need at least one impact winger if we want to contend within the next 2-3 years. No amount of "cap management" will change that. If there is a better UFA on which we can go all in, then I agree we should do that. If there isn't, then I have no problem with the overpay.

The three options this summer are Moulson, Vanek and Gaborik. Vanek is clearly the best option, but the question is if he's going to cost us at least $7.5m/8 years, versus $6m/5 years for Moulson or $6M/4 years for Gaborik, which is the better option considering cost and term.

[l<OV4L3V]

I'd want to know what the cap is going to be AND move guys like DD and Gorges first and then use that money on Vanek. But the term would be the question. Most UFA's are 27 or 28. Signing them to a 7 yr deal means the last year of the deal will be around 35 years old. Vanek is going to turn 31. Signing him would probably require 8 years which the current team is allowed to go to. That means, he will be around 39 by the end of the deal. So it's probably over-paying him for at least 3 years of the deal.

Not trying to throw grenades here, but didn't we sign Mike Cammalleri, Brian Gionta, AND Scott Gomez to long term deals years ago; who all have point production way beneath that of Vanek, who competed on mediocre organizations throughout a majority of his career? IMO, he is worth a shot and is better than 85% of the current nucleus on Montreal. I understand those signings were under a different GM, but one still remains as Captain, who Vanek is theoretially better than. In terms of cap hit, you face that with a majority of modern day UFA's...Marc Bergevin isn't really rolling the dice on a proven performer; that's like overlooking Jaromir Jagr because of his age (41 yrs old, still lethal/ we wish wearing a CH with Plex). Reconsider the number crunching

[hab29RETIRED]

There's a difference between signing Jagr to a one year deal (which I've been VERY supportive and vocal about) - hell, I'd still like to sign him next year - and signing a guy for 8 years (which is what I'm GUESSING it would take to sign him). If we can get him for the 5 or 6 term, for not to ridiculous of a hit, I'm all for it.

Remember, we used a free lockout compliance buyout to get out of the final 2 years of Gonez's $7m deal. Cammy was garbage the last years of his deal (and we traded his $6m hit), for Bourque - who I'd argue is a worse contract, given his lazy ass, 2 year longer contract and general suckiness.

Gionta's contract was for $4.5m not $6m or $7m like Cammy and Gomez. He was value for money the first 2 years. Injured for parts of two years and IMO should have been moved before this year.

Not trying to throw grenades here, but didn't we sign Mike Cammalleri, Brian Gionta, AND Scott Gomez to long term deals years ago; who all have point production way beneath that of Vanek, who competed on mediocre organizations throughout a majority of his career? IMO, he is worth a shot and is better than 85% of the current nucleus on Montreal. I understand those signings were under a different GM, but one still remains as Captain, who Vanek is theoretially better than. In terms of cap hit, you face that with a majority of modern day UFA's...Marc Bergevin isn't really rolling the dice on a proven performer; that's like overlooking Jaromir Jagr because of his age (41 yrs old, still lethal/ we wish wearing a CH with Plex). Reconsider the number crunching

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Moulson is interesting, but does anyone really think often-broken Gaborik is the piece we need to become perennial contenders? Or worse, Jagr? That's just more patchwork thinking. Besides, who says that Moulson or Gaborik won't also command ridiculous deals? Any time you go after a big-name UFA, you overpay in either term or salary or both. At least with Vanek you'd be getting, oh, 4-5 years of EXACTLY what this team needs: money in the bank.

Again, we have no equivalent to Vanek anywhere in the system, and we will need a player of his profile if we want to take that next step and become, not just provisional long-shots, but serious, reliable contenders. Short of some massive, franchise-shaking trade, the only way to fill that gap is via the UFA market.

The other option is to identify an "under the radar" UFA who has untapped upside and will make a big impact for us, while being signed to a multi-year deal for a comparative bargain. I'd love that, obviously; we all would. But usually the world doesn't work this way.

Fans are just in denial IMHO. "We can become contenders without adding major pieces." I've been consistent in thinking this delusional. "We can get the pieces we need without paying insane contracts." Most unlikely. It's like thinking we can have both tax cuts and improved social programs. The fact is, you gotta pay, and any impact UFA will almost certainly be an overpay. Accept it and move on.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I'd want to know what the cap is going to be AND move guys like DD and Gorges first and then use that money on Vanek. But the term would be the question. Most UFA's are 27 or 28. Signing them to a 7 yr deal means the last year of the deal will be around 35 years old. Vanek is going to turn 31. Signing him would probably require 8 years which the current team is allowed to go to. That means, he will be around 39 by the end of the deal. So it's probably over-paying him for at least 3 years of the deal.

Face it! DD and Gorges aren't going anywhere, and if anything, their roles and stature on the team will only increase. They are company men.

[hab29RETIRED]

The problem with overpaying for a UFA, is that you have to make sure you can plug your other holes.

Let's say we sign Vanek for 7.5m or more likely $8m, what about the D? We only have Emelin and Gorges signed. If Vanek gets $8m, no way we get Subban for less than $8.5m (again, why he should have been signed long-term last year!!!).

If we don't resign Markov (probably at least at his current $5.75m), are we comfortable with Subban, Tinordi,Beaulieu, gorges, Emelin, and some other free agent for our D?

Then what about next year when Galchenyuk has to be resigned. There's only so many overpaid players you can have, we already have a bottom pairing dman (gorges) making $4m and a scratched bum (Bourque), making $3.2m.

I think if we are going to go after Vanek, we need to get Subban and Markov signed first, to see how much we are paying for our D, because no way Subban's agent lets him sign a long-term deal for less than what Vanek gets paid.

We have some very good players and the making if a good core, but we are very poorly constructed. Even if Gionta is gone next year, we have too many small players on the top 6 next year (DD, Galleghar). No way I'd trade Galleghar, so that makes DD expandable.

We also need to create a spot at CENTRE for Galchenyuk. With DD, pleks, and Eller, there is no room for Galchenyuk to get decent minutes. At least one of DD and Pleks needs to be moved.

If pleks is playing against top lines, he is playing close to 20 minutes. I think pleks and gorges could fill two holes - on D and a big winger (i.e. Kane).

If DD is playing here, he is playing with Maxpac, which means, he gets a lot of minutes - which is another reason to move DD. If he finishes strong, at $3.5m, if packaged with someone like Gorges, he might even bring a decent return.

On D, we have too many players playing on the wrong side. We also have a great rah rah guy who would be a great bottom pairing dman, but at $4m, he is making too much money.

Like I said, I'd love too get Vanek, but we need to fix the structural issues first.

Moulson is interesting, but does anyone really think often-broken Gaborik is the piece we need to become perennial contenders? Or worse, Jagr? That's just more patchwork thinking. Besides, who says that Moulson or Gaborik won't also command ridiculous deals? Any time you go after a big-name UFA, you overpay in either term or salary or both. At least with Vanek you'd be getting, oh, 4-5 years of EXACTLY what this team needs: money in the bank.

Again, we have no equivalent to Vanek anywhere in the system, and we will need a player of his profile if we want to take that next step and become, not just provisional long-shots, but serious, reliable contenders. Short of some massive, franchise-shaking trade, the only way to fill that gap is via the UFA market.

The other option is to identify an "under the radar" UFA who has untapped upside and will make a big impact for us, while being signed to a multi-year deal for a comparative bargain. I'd love that, obviously; we all would. But usually the world doesn't work this way.

Fans are just in denial IMHO. "We can become contenders without adding major pieces." I've been consistent in thinking this delusional. "We can get the pieces we need without paying insane contracts." Most unlikely. It's like thinking we can have both tax cuts and improved social programs. The fact is, you gotta pay, and any impact UFA will almost certainly be an overpay. Accept it and move on.

[hab29RETIRED]

Why not?

If the habs were willing to move Lafleur AND Robinson in the early 80's and the Flyers could move Carter and Richards after signing them to long term deals, why can't we move a 5'6" forward and a bottom pairing dman?

Face it! DD and Gorges aren't going anywhere, and if anything, their roles and stature on the team will only increase. They are company men.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Look at Chicago. They lock in their core at huge, market-rate salaries, and then allow impact second-tier players to walk year after year, replaced by cheaper young guys from within the system.

The key is obviously to have a pipeline reliably producing cheap young players that can supplant more expensive, second- and third-tier veterans on your roster. The issue with us, therefore, is less that we'd be throwing massive dough at Vanek, Subban, and Price - that's what those guys are worth - but that we're wasting millions on players like Gionta and Bourque, who should be replaced much more cheaply by guys like Bournival or equivalent. Gorges is a tougher call, but in principle represents another overpaid complementary player. Identify your core, lock it in, and then treat the rest as disposable the minute it gets too costly.

I think this model should be feasible for us. Timmins has shown that he can generate a steady stream of quality second-tier NHLers. Even without Colberg and Bozon, we still have quite a few appealing prospects in the system. What we need to do is make sure that we have player development to rival that of Chicago or Anaheim, so that we can dependably turn over whatever supplementary pieces of our roster have grown too expensive. So the cap problem is NOT overpaying for a Vanek; it's it clinging to overpaid complementary players due to a lack of player development.