Jump to content

Habs claim Adam Brooks off waivers


alfredoh2009
 Share

Recommended Posts

Someone else had been hoping for this one too if you look back in our discussion yesterday...

 

I like this pickup a lot.  He hasn't had much of a look in the NHL but has been decent in his opportunities and there is some offensive upside there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dlbalr said:

Someone else had been hoping for this one too if you look back in our discussion yesterday...

 

I like this pickup a lot.  He hasn't had much of a look in the NHL but has been decent in his opportunities and there is some offensive upside there as well.

You are right, you called

me out on Gélinas 

 

Now we can say that theHaba bottom 6 is better than last year. More production can be expected and there are

multiple Options for face offs which should improve results on set plays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the kid doesn't seem to have much positive coverage from Maple Leaf's beat reporters, at least none that I could find.

 

He played the 4 years of his draft eligibility and was a late pick at 92 in 2016.

 

His NHL advanced stats are better than the depth players, remaining UFAs and waived players I've seen this off season.

 

He could be a "David Desharnais" type of player if he gets to play with Hoffman and Gallagher.

 

But I would expect him to start on the 4th line, whenever he starts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s always fun to imagine that we’ve snatched an overlooked gem. Then again, I recall the same hope around Niku - which, too be fair, may yet be fulfilled, but which has dampened down considerably after a dubious and injury-wrecked preseason.

 

All that said, even if he doesn’t work out at this level, he is a young-ish FW who can add some legit quality to the AHL team. Really no downsides to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Vegas got him so I wouldn't call that "long before" Montreal.  My question is really, would they risk putting claims on both and getting both.  I guess the only downside would be with their 50 contract limit and even then they could waive one and hope their team grabs him back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Peter Puck said:

Well Vegas got him so I wouldn't call that "long before" Montreal.  My question is really, would they risk putting claims on both and getting both.  I guess the only downside would be with their 50 contract limit and even then they could waive one and hope their team grabs him back. 

ABB went to the Seattle Kraken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peter Puck said:

Well Vegas got him so I wouldn't call that "long before" Montreal.  My question is really, would they risk putting claims on both and getting both.  I guess the only downside would be with their 50 contract limit and even then they could waive one and hope their team grabs him back. 

 

For roster compliance purposes, they could have put claims in for both.  Had they got both, they'd have just sent Poehling down to get back to 23 on the opening roster with Belzile hitting waivers soon after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

For roster compliance purposes, they could have put claims in for both.  Had they got both, they'd have just sent Poehling down to get back to 23 on the opening roster with Belzile hitting waivers soon after.

Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This puts the Habs' cap at $91,951,370. If you deduct $10,500,000 from that, you get $81,451,370 -- compliant, and only $49K below the normal cap limit. Very close indeed.

 

So, this is surely the Habs' final move for now, bar putting Price on "training camp LTIR" to open the season, which then sets the Habs' cap limit at $81,451,370 for the season. Once the season starts, they'll be able to put Weber and/or Byron on LTIR without affecting the limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

This puts the Habs' cap at $91,951,370. If you deduct $10,500,000 from that, you get $81,451,370 -- compliant, and only $49K below the normal cap limit. Very close indeed.

 

They could have gotten closer to that even.  Send Poehling ($750K) down and add Khisamutdinov ($795K) - that could have put them within ~$4,000.  Then flip the two back tomorrow on Day 1 of the season.  Oh well, it shouldn't be a big issue either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dlbalr said:

 

They could have gotten closer to that even.  Send Poehling ($750K) down and add Khisamutdinov ($795K) - that could have put them within ~$4,000.  Then flip the two back tomorrow on Day 1 of the season.  Oh well, it shouldn't be a big issue either way.

True. But this way they were also able to sign a potentially useful player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tomh009 said:

True. But this way they were also able to sign a potentially useful player.

 

I don't think the Brooks waiver claim would have precluded that flip.  He's on the opening roster and is included with being $49K shy of the limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dlbalr said:

I don't think the Brooks waiver claim would have precluded that flip.  He's on the opening roster and is included with being $49K shy of the limit.

Oh, I see now what you proposed with the Poehling/Khisamutdinov move. Duh, sorry, I missed that earlier.

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...