Jump to content

Where are they now? News on past Habs prospects and players


alfredoh2009
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't agree with Toffoli being the only shrewd signing. 

 

Chiarot for his contract and term was a very shrewd signing. 

Edmundson was also a very shrewd signing. 

Jake Allen is another very shrewd signing. 

 

Jake Evans for 3 additional years at under 2 million seems like a good deal too. 

 

As for others, I still have heard that lots of teams are interested in Gallagher even at his contract. Same with Anderson, and Armia.  Are those really bad signings if other teams want to trade for the contracts?

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I don't agree with Toffoli being the only shrewd signing. 

 

Chiarot for his contract and term was a very shrewd signing. 

Edmundson was also a very shrewd signing. 

Jake Allen is another very shrewd signing. 

 

Jake Evans for 3 additional years at under 2 million seems like a good deal too. 

 

As for others, I still have heard that lots of teams are interested in Gallagher even at his contract. Same with Anderson, and Armia.  Are those really bad signings if other teams want to trade for the contracts?

 

The test will be how many, if any, are willing to take them at the full AAV that Bergevin gave them ... if they are moved without money retained then I would take them off any references to bad signings.

 

I would include Allen as a shrewd trade and signing ... but think that Chiarot and Edmundson are good signings but not necessarily shrewd ... Evans is hard to evaluate as he hasn't been able to play in his ideal role (4C IMO) very much this season ... but I agree that at this point it looks like a good deal, subject only to possible concussion issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

That is one of his biggest issues. Most of the good teams in the league built their teams around a fast young core. MB, probably due to his inability to draft and develop, acted like it was 1999,  and continued to trade and sign aging veterans who were closed to, or were pretty much washed out.

 

Taffoli was really his only shrewd signing in recent years.

I'm happy we have Gorton, but let's be real, Bergevin's additions weren't all slow old guys. He added Suzuki, Caufield, Romanov, Kotkaniemi (yes, he's gone now), Lehkonen, Evans, Poehling, Dvorak and Niku. All were under 25 when signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

I don't agree with Toffoli being the only shrewd signing. 

 

Chiarot for his contract and term was a very shrewd signing. 

Edmundson was also a very shrewd signing. 

Jake Allen is another very shrewd signing. 

 

Jake Evans for 3 additional years at under 2 million seems like a good deal too. 

 

As for others, I still have heard that lots of teams are interested in Gallagher even at his contract. Same with Anderson, and Armia.  Are those really bad signings if other teams want to trade for the contracts?

 

 

Yeah, yesterday I proposed that that could be the real measure of a bad contract - whether you can trade the player without having to provide additional inducements. If you can, then arguably it’s market value, not truly a bad contract. I think that definition has some good mileage to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tomh009 said:

I'm happy we have Gorton, but let's be real, Bergevin's additions weren't all slow old guys. He added Suzuki, Caufield, Romanov, Kotkaniemi (yes, he's gone now), Lehkonen, Evans, Poehling, Dvorak and Niku. All were under 25 when signed.

I’m talking about the core players on the team - clear top line or top 4.

 

Of those only Suzuki is really a core player TODAY. The hope is that at a minimum Caufield and Romanov will develop into core players.

 

KK was another one we had hoped would be a core player, but IMO downgraded him and a puck into Dvorak.

 

From what I’ve seen so far, Poehling, Evans, and Lekhonan - all of whom I like. Seem to be more complementary players. As far as Dvorak goes, I’d rather we kept the first and second rounder.

 

Most of the core of the team signed by MB was guys into their mid 35’a to early 40’s signed Price, Weber, Petry, Gallagher, Chiarot, Edmondson are all old.

 

Taffoli is in his prime, Drouin is showing to be a complementary player ((middle six), ditto with Anderson.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmundson and Chiarot were in their late 20s: peak age for a D

Toffoli, Drouin, Anderson, Lehkonen, Armia, Danault, Gallagher were in their mid-to-late 20s

 

Old guys were Weber, Petry and Price

 

Who was 35 to 40 when signed as a core player by MB?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Yeah, yesterday I proposed that that could be the real measure of a bad contract - whether you can trade the player without having to provide additional inducements. If you can, then arguably it’s market value, not truly a bad contract. I think that definition has some good mileage to it.

 

That is one possible framing

 

I wonder though, what about the case of 

 

One team says, we will take Chiarot at full value and give you a 2nd rounder, and a second team who is more cash strapped says, we will take chiarot at 50% retained and give you a first?  And of course we are never going to know the full details that this happened, we will likely only hear some rumours and the actual trade.

If we get a first and have to retain some cause the cap has been flat and so many teams are hard against it, does it still make it a bad contract? 

So I don't think a bright line rule of no retention is how to look at it, especially with deals that expire this year or next year and aren't long term commitments. 

 

If we have to retain on a short term deal to up the trade value, is that a bad contract, or is that exacting a higher price cause we can facilitate a trade with a cap strapped team.

 

I agree that if you have to significantly retain to move someone and youre retaining 3 or 4 or more years, then thats a bad contract. 


Similarly if we look at other trades.... what if we trade someone but instead of retaining take back a bad multi-year deal.  I think that says it was a bad contract and not a good one even though we aren't retaining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

seems like captain wobbly ankles was spotted in VAN

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2022 at 9:53 PM, DON said:

max P.

87pt pace last year

88pt pace this year

 

MaxPac is a very fine player and always was, notwithstanding fans who tried to turn him into some sort of problem here. He sure never approached that pace with us, though!

 

20 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

seems like captain wobbly ankles was spotted in VAN

 

 

 

 

I’m curious to know how Weber is bearing up and what his frame of mind is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

MaxPac is a very fine player and always was, notwithstanding fans who tried to turn him into some sort of problem here. He sure never approached that pace with us, though!

 

 

I’m curious to know how Weber is bearing up and what his frame of mind is. 


Patches was my favourite Hab when he was traded, but the trade has benefited the Habs 

 

I am happy for him in VGK, wish he wins a cup

 

Weber, like others on the roster, is probably also enamoured with the changes and I would not be surprised if he thinks about trying to return for one last kick at the can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I don’t want Weber and his franchise-crippling contract coming back under any circumstances.

I understand your point on the contract, it would be better for the organization if he retired

 

but I would not be surprised if the positivity around the team doesn’t bring Webby to consider rehabbing instead of retiring 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

seems like captain wobbly ankles was spotted in VAN

 

Considering he lives in BC, that shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I understand your point on the contract, it would be better for the organization if he retired

 

but I would not be surprised if the positivity around the team doesn’t bring Webby to consider rehabbing instead of retiring 

 

Retirement = small recapture for Montreal on the cap for several years and no salary for him.  That's not really better for anyone.  

 

Weber isn't coming back - that has been made clear already.  This stretch isn't changing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

Weber isn't coming back - that has been made clear already.  This stretch isn't changing that.

 

Every comment I have read about Weber not returning is a reference to this season.  I don't believe that he's de facto 100% unable to ever play again.  

 

Last week I read an article that the Wild have had talks with Hughes about acquiring Weber's contact.   Apparently, they could use his LTIR to help them offset their buyouts of Parise and Sutter - but no trade has happened yet.     

 

There is a slight possibility that he might be able to return next season and that would kill any trade with a team like the Wild that want to use his LTIR for Cap relief in that manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elliott friedmann said today that Weber's contract will not be moved before the summer.  This is too complicated a trade to do in season, but is still a good chance of happening around the draft. 

Also, he's not coming back, he's done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Every comment I have read about Weber not returning is a reference to this season.  I don't believe that he's de facto 100% unable to ever play again.  

 

Last week I read an article that the Wild have had talks with Hughes about acquiring Weber's contact.   Apparently, they could use his LTIR to help them offset their buyouts of Parise and Sutter - but no trade has happened yet.     

 

There is a slight possibility that he might be able to return next season and that would kill any trade with a team like the Wild that want to use his LTIR for Cap relief in that manner. 

 

Everything I've seen is that he's done for his career, not the season.  That's why Bergevin gave Savard a four-year deal as his replacement.  If it was a thing where he'd be back next season, they would have only been able to sign his replacement to a one-year contract.  He's not coming back.

 

Minnesota was speculatively suggested in The Athletic by Michael Russo who's a great writer but Weber's contract makes no sense for them given what lies ahead - they won't have enough cap space to get creative to make that scenario make sense for them.  

 

There are two teams where his contract could make sense:

 

1) A team who is looking for a low-salary, high-AAV contract to lower their salary spending while staying compliant with the minimum salary.

2) A team who has enough cap space to add Weber's contract without LTIR who can then LTIR him and bring up a replacement player or two using that money.

 

I can't think of a viable team for category #2 and the fact that Weber has four years left makes it undesirable even if there was a fit for this year.  Being in LTIR that long isn't a good thing.  Montreal's capologist basically admitted as such a few weeks ago.  When the time comes to move Weber, it will be to a team like Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

Everything I've seen is that he's done for his career, not the season.  That's why Bergevin gave Savard a four-year deal as his replacement.  If it was a thing where he'd be back next season, they would have only been able to sign his replacement to a one-year contract.  He's not coming back.

 

Minnesota was speculatively suggested in The Athletic by Michael Russo who's a great writer but Weber's contract makes no sense for them given what lies ahead - they won't have enough cap space to get creative to make that scenario make sense for them.  

 

There are two teams where his contract could make sense:

 

1) A team who is looking for a low-salary, high-AAV contract to lower their salary spending while staying compliant with the minimum salary.

2) A team who has enough cap space to add Weber's contract without LTIR who can then LTIR him and bring up a replacement player or two using that money.

 

I can't think of a viable team for category #2 and the fact that Weber has four years left makes it undesirable even if there was a fit for this year.  Being in LTIR that long isn't a good thing.  Montreal's capologist basically admitted as such a few weeks ago.  When the time comes to move Weber, it will be to a team like Arizona.

 

Great analysis ... and, in addition, option 2 it would be expensive (players/picks/prospects) in order to convince a team to take the contract as there is really no benefit for them to do it (they could just keep the replacement player without going into LTIR) ... so even more reason it is unlikely ... are the Habs THAT desperate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

Everything I've seen is that he's done for his career, not the season.  That's why Bergevin gave Savard a four-year deal as his replacement.  If it was a thing where he'd be back next season, they would have only been able to sign his replacement to a one-year contract.  He's not coming back.

 

Minnesota was speculatively suggested in The Athletic by Michael Russo who's a great writer but Weber's contract makes no sense for them given what lies ahead - they won't have enough cap space to get creative to make that scenario make sense for them.  

 

There are two teams where his contract could make sense:

 

1) A team who is looking for a low-salary, high-AAV contract to lower their salary spending while staying compliant with the minimum salary.

2) A team who has enough cap space to add Weber's contract without LTIR who can then LTIR him and bring up a replacement player or two using that money.

 

I can't think of a viable team for category #2 and the fact that Weber has four years left makes it undesirable even if there was a fit for this year.  Being in LTIR that long isn't a good thing.  Montreal's capologist basically admitted as such a few weeks ago.  When the time comes to move Weber, it will be to a team like Arizona.

 

 

I have to admit that I don't understand how option 2 would work for a team. If they have enough cap space to add Weber's contract then why not use that cap space for a replacement player or two??  How does adding Weber's contact give them more room??  What am I missing, 

 

I certainly get option 1.  That has Arizona written all over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

 

I have to admit that I don't understand how option 2 would work for a team. If they have enough cap space to add Weber's contract then why not use that cap space for a replacement player or two??  How does adding Weber's contact give them more room??  What am I missing, 

 

I certainly get option 1.  That has Arizona written all over it. 

 

Its complicated, but Tampa has used picking up contracts of LTIR players, and the Leafs have used re-acquiring David Clarkson in recent years to maximize their LTIR space.  It can help add a small amount of free space when you are able to get right against the cap.  It has to be done in off-season, a trade now wont work, as it takes some planning with other contracts. 

Its not a big amount of extra space but can help, and if you have a player whose contract is going to be covered mostly by insurance, and his actual salary is much less than his cap hit, then its a cheap way to get a little extra breathing room. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Its complicated, but Tampa has used picking up contracts of LTIR players, and the Leafs have used re-acquiring David Clarkson in recent years to maximize their LTIR space.  It can help add a small amount of free space when you are able to get right against the cap.  It has to be done in off-season, a trade now wont work, as it takes some planning with other contracts. 

Its not a big amount of extra space but can help, and if you have a player whose contract is going to be covered mostly by insurance, and his actual salary is much less than his cap hit, then its a cheap way to get a little extra breathing room. 

Is it not related to the 10% cap ceiling overage allowed in the offseason (teams must be compliant before their first game of the next season) ... as you say it is not substantial ... Weber would give up to  $785,714 in extra offseason cap space for cap-strapped teams that could be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GHT120 said:

Great analysis ... and, in addition, option 2 it would be expensive (players/picks/prospects) in order to convince a team to take the contract as there is really no benefit for them to do it (they could just keep the replacement player without going into LTIR) ... so even more reason it is unlikely ... are the Habs THAT desperate?

 

I don't think the Habs are desperate to move him to the point where they'll pay a high pick or prospect to do it.  They're covered for this year so there isn't a pressing need to do anything with him.

 

4 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I have to admit that I don't understand how option 2 would work for a team. If they have enough cap space to add Weber's contract then why not use that cap space for a replacement player or two??  How does adding Weber's contact give them more room??  What am I missing,

 

It's a hard one to explain and I don't know if I have it down right enough to the point where I could explain it without confusing everyone (including myself) further.  As Commandant noted, it's hard to take advantage of it in the regular season.  Tampa did it in the summer, flipping a healthy player in Johnson for Seabrook's LTIR contract which eventually yielded a bit of extra flexibility in the form of LTIR space.  But no, it's not an easy one to pull off, Option 1 is the much simpler and more common one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GHT120 said:

Is it not related to the 10% cap ceiling overage allowed in the offseason (teams must be compliant before their first game of the next season) ... as you say it is not substantial ... Weber would give up to  $785,714 in extra offseason cap space for cap-strapped teams that could be useful.

 

That's another reason why Montreal may want out of Weber's deal at some point although offseason LTIR does exist for teams who have to go over that threshold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

I don't think the Habs are desperate to move him to the point where they'll pay a high pick or prospect to do it.  They're covered for this year so there isn't a pressing need to do anything with him.

 

 

It's a hard one to explain and I don't know if I have it down right enough to the point where I could explain it without confusing everyone (including myself) further.  As Commandant noted, it's hard to take advantage of it in the regular season.  Tampa did it in the summer, flipping a healthy player in Johnson for Seabrook's LTIR contract which eventually yielded a bit of extra flexibility in the form of LTIR space.  But no, it's not an easy one to pull off, Option 1 is the much simpler and more common one.

 

It looks like it's one of those complicated ones  where you have to provide an example (with numbers) to show the benefit. Thanks for the replies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • tomh009 changed the title to Where are they now? News on past Habs prospects and playershttps://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?/topic/47278-where-are-they-now-news-on-past-habs-prospects-and-players/&do=getNewComment
  • tomh009 changed the title to Where are they now? News on past Habs prospects and players

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...