Waivers Habs claim Rem Pitlick

[tomh009]

10 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

One thing about having a terrible team is that it often creates openings for guys who would to contribute meaningfully for a while. (Think Oleg Petrov). They’re like hothouse flowers, good players who usually have some limitation to their game that means their window shuts as the team gets better. But who knows, maybe Pitlick will be able to carve out a niche as a valued #6 FW helping to keep us afloat during the “rebuild” years ahead. 

That's really it. Guys like Pitlick, Clague, Niku or Montembeault are unlikely to be able to find roles for themselves on a contending team. However, for the next season or two, as we rebuild, it's more likely (or less unlikely?) that there could be a spot for them. In that kind of rebuild scenario it doesn't make a lot of sense to sign veterans to $2M+ contracts, and as more prospects join the team, these guys will either elevate their games or fall behind the prospects and on the waiver wire.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

6 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

That's really it. Guys like Pitlick, Clague, Niku or Montembeault are unlikely to be able to find roles for themselves on a contending team. However, for the next season or two, as we rebuild, it's more likely (or less unlikely?) that there could be a spot for them. In that kind of rebuild scenario it doesn't make a lot of sense to sign veterans to $2M+ contracts, and as more prospects join the team, these guys will either elevate their games or fall behind the prospects and on the waiver wire.

 

I like Montembault, dammit! 😝 Honestly, I could see him doing the rounds and having an NHL career backing up stud #1 Gs, playing 20 games per year or whatever. He’s making a good case for himself.

 

But yeah. Guys like those you list are what we might call “honourable placeholders.” They make a valuable contribution to a rebuilding team for 2-3 years, then diminish and usually bounce around on the fringes before ending up in Europe or someplace. Better than scrubs, but not quite the right fit for a strong NHL roster. 

[tomh009]

I think we should start using "honourable placeholder" as a player classification!

 

"Yeah, Schmitz is nowhere near elite, but he still better than an HP!"

[Neech]

What's the frequency, Pitlick?

 

(is this already a thing)

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I like Montembault, dammit! 😝 Honestly, I could see him doing the rounds and having an NHL career backing up stud #1 Gs, playing 20 games per year or whatever. He’s making a good case for himself.

 

But yeah. Guys like those you list are what we might call “honourable placeholders.” They make a valuable contribution to a rebuilding team for 2-3 years, then diminish and usually bounce around on the fringes before ending up in Europe or someplace. Better than scrubs, but not quite the right fit for a strong NHL roster. 

 

same here, I like how he battles. I believe that he takes himself out of position, similar to when Price is overly active and is "off the net" for some shots.

I believe that Montembault's technique can be fixed, I hope he stays

[Sir_Boagalott]

16 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

If he continues to perform this well, he may take Perreault's spot in next year's lineup. A serviceable 3rd line forward that can move up the lineup when injuries happen. I think he may be able to take some faceoffs too.

 

Is there a site that tracks AHL FO%?  I'm unaware of such a site, and it would be interesting to know how good he is at FO's.

 

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

It’s natural to get excited when a new guy is acquired painlessly and steps in and seems to play well. But - echoing Commandant - I’ve seen this movie before and it almost never ends with the “Paul Byron” outcome, i.e., a valuable roster regular. Indeed, I’d be interested in data showing what % of the time an NHLer who is waived goes on to become an established player on his new team. 10-15% of the time, maybe? Whatever the exact figure, the odds are heavily against the kid. But I hope he beats them and does become a legit top-6 FW. That’d be great. 

 

 

 

I agree that the % of players that are waived and end up being a valuable regular on another team is probably fairly low.  However, that would likely be dependent on the strength of the team that waived the player and their reason for waiving him.  

 

8 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

Generally there isn't but sometimes it'll leak out.  I haven't seen anything for this claim but when Minnesota got him, I think they were the only team to put a claim in.  Nashville probably did this time as if they claimed him and no one else did, they'd have been able to send him down.

 

 

I imagine the Preds did try did try to get him back and I wouldnt be surprised if other teams tried to get him.  Its not like either team wanted to get rid of him, they just didn't have a spot for him.  ex:  the Preds and Wild already had better top 6 C's and F's so Pitlick basically became irrelevant to them vs not being good.   He was Top 10 in AHL, and when he was NCAA he was a Hobey finalist too.      

 

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I like Montembault, dammit! 😝 Honestly, I could see him doing the rounds and having an NHL career backing up stud #1 Gs, playing 20 games per year or whatever. He’s making a good case for himself.

 

 

 

At 1st I wasn't overly impressed with Montembault (or Primeau either), but it seems like both have significantly improved since the start of the season.  They might have been green and nervous and have settled down now that they've played more games.   Plus they weren't getting proper support either.  

[tomh009]

48 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

At 1st I wasn't overly impressed with Montembault (or Primeau either), but it seems like both have significantly improved since the start of the season.  They might have been green and nervous and have settled down now that they've played more games.   Plus they weren't getting proper support either.  

Montembeault was pretty shaky the first three or four games but he has been steadily improving (gaining confidence?) over the last 10 games or so.

 

Primeau doesn't feel as ready yet. But maybe it's because he has only 10 NHL games so far to Montembeault's 40. He is three years younger, too.

[Commandant]

9 hours ago, tomh009 said:

That's really it. Guys like Pitlick, Clague, Niku or Montembeault are unlikely to be able to find roles for themselves on a contending team. However, for the next season or two, as we rebuild, it's more likely (or less unlikely?) that there could be a spot for them. In that kind of rebuild scenario it doesn't make a lot of sense to sign veterans to $2M+ contracts, and as more prospects join the team, these guys will either elevate their games or fall behind the prospects and on the waiver wire.

 

i would sign cheap vets in the summer for one year, give them lots of minutes and PP time, boost their stats and deal them for extra picks at the deadline. 

[GHT120]

49 minutes ago, Commandant said:

i would sign cheap vets in the summer for one year, give them lots of minutes and PP time, boost their stats and deal them for extra picks at the deadline. 

Totally agree ... that would be a great move IMO.

[Sir_Boagalott]

59 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

i would sign cheap vets in the summer for one year, give them lots of minutes and PP time, boost their stats and deal them for extra picks at the deadline. 

 

That could be a good idea during an official rebuild, but I'm generally against that concept though.  I think that is part of the Habs developmental issue.  i.e. they keep bringing in 4th line or d-men vets for cheap.  However, that takes away a raster spot for a prospect, and they end up dwindling away in the AHL.  ex:  signing vets could keep Peohling in the AHL for another 1-2 years, and when Peohling does get a full time slot there will be the excuse that he doesn't have enough NHL experience.  That argument shouldn't be the case but in that scenario it would be true. 

 

Also, they do have numerous d-men coming up and instead of trying to get more picks, have the youngsters gain experience and long term that would probably be more valuable.

 

 

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

i would sign cheap vets in the summer for one year, give them lots of minutes and PP time, boost their stats and deal them for extra picks at the deadline. 

I don't want to give the ice time and PP time to vets -- I would want to give that to the young players we are developing.

[Commandant]

8 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

That could be a good idea during an official rebuild, but I'm generally against that concept though.  I think that is part of the Habs developmental issue.  i.e. they keep bringing in 4th line or d-men vets for cheap.  However, that takes away a raster spot for a prospect, and they end up dwindling away in the AHL.  ex:  signing vets could keep Peohling in the AHL for another 1-2 years, and when Peohling does get a full time slot there will be the excuse that he doesn't have enough NHL experience.  That argument shouldn't be the case but in that scenario it would be true. 

 

Also, they do have numerous d-men coming up and instead of trying to get more picks, have the youngsters gain experience and long term that would probably be more valuable.

 

 

 

some of the existing roster will be traded at the deadline or in summer.... this will open up some spots too. 

 

you don't want all kids... it has to be a mix, and some of the guys traded would be replaced by cheap vets. 

 

and the kids who are NHL ready will earn spots... those who are not can stay in the ahl and develop.

[Commandant]

7 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I don't want to give the ice time and PP time to vets -- I would want to give that to the young players we are developing.

 

those who earn ice time will get it 

 

those who don't need more ahl time.

[GHT120]

1 hour ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

That could be a good idea during an official rebuild, but I'm generally against that concept though.  I think that is part of the Habs developmental issue.  i.e. they keep bringing in 4th line or d-men vets for cheap.  However, that takes away a raster spot for a prospect, and they end up dwindling away in the AHL ...

 

59 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I don't want to give the ice time and PP time to vets -- I would want to give that to the young players we are developing.

 

I don't think anyone was advocating signing veterans to fill spots which youngsters are ready to fill ... but rather to  sign "buffers" to allow youngsters to complete their development rather than shoehorning them into the line-up out of necessity.

[dlbalr]

4 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Is there a site that tracks AHL FO%?  I'm unaware of such a site, and it would be interesting to know how good he is at FO's.

 

I imagine the Preds did try did try to get him back and I wouldnt be surprised if other teams tried to get him.  Its not like either team wanted to get rid of him, they just didn't have a spot for him.  ex:  the Preds and Wild already had better top 6 C's and F's so Pitlick basically became irrelevant to them vs not being good.   He was Top 10 in AHL, and when he was NCAA he was a Hobey finalist too.     

 

There used to be one a few years ago that tracked AHL faceoff percentage but as far as I know, there isn't one publicly available.  Teams do have access to that data though.

 

They may not have wanted to lose Pitlick but I don't think either team was really worried about losing him either.  Pitlick was a non-prospect in Nashville which is why he hardly played.  His performance was that of being a minor league depth piece and they viewed him as such.  He was waived well before opening rosters were set which is a sign that he wasn't exactly close to even being in the mix for a roster spot.  If either team thought Pitlick had long-term top-six or even top-nine value, they'd have held onto him.  It'd be poor asset management to get rid of one of those guys for nothing if that's truly the valuation they had on him.  The guys that get waived are the ones that are viewed as low-end, expendable role players.  That's almost certainly where both teams had him pegged.

[Commandant]

Pitlick is basically Charles Hudon, but Nashville took him in the draft. 

[dlbalr]

I forgot about the Group VI proration as a result of the shortened seasons in 2019-20 and 2020-21.  As a result, the threshold of 80 games is actually slightly lower.  That small difference could keep Pitlick RFA-eligible.  His target is 74 GP (it's actually not a flat number for everyone, it's player-specific depending on how many team games were played in 19-20).  He's at 51 and Montreal has 25 left.  As long as he stays healthy for the rest of the season (that's a big if) and isn't forced out of the lineup as players return, the Habs can keep his rights through a qualifying offer that will be for a little under a million and he'll have arbitration rights.

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

I forgot about the Group VI proration as a result of the shortened seasons in 2019-20 and 2020-21.  As a result, the threshold of 80 games is actually slightly lower.  That small difference could keep Pitlick RFA-eligible.  His target is 74 GP (it's actually not a flat number for everyone, it's player-specific depending on how many team games were played in 19-20).  He's at 51 and Montreal has 25 left.  As long as he stays healthy for the rest of the season (that's a big if) and isn't forced out of the lineup as players return, the Habs can keep his rights through a qualifying offer that will be for a little under a million and he'll have arbitration rights.

So, if he plays 24 or 25 more games, he would turn into a UFA, right?

[PMAC]

On 1/20/2022 at 10:59 PM, Commandant said:

Pitlick is basically Charles Hudon, but Nashville took him in the draft. 

I don't recall Hudon ever: 

a, skating like that

b. scoring like that

c. exciting me with his play like that

d. All of the above. 

[Commandant]

1 minute ago, PMAC said:

I don't recall Hudon ever: 

a, skating like that

b. scoring like that

c. exciting me with his play like that

d. All of the above. 

 

Hudon had a good first year but ok.

 

His numbers are still unsustainable compared to the underlying numbers.  I stand by my not a long term solution assessment.

[PMAC]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Hudon had a good first year but ok.

 

His numbers are still unsustainable compared to the underlying numbers.  I stand by my not a long term solution assessment.

Your assessment may very well be correct but that comparison is not. Also, just because Rempit is not going to score at his current pace doesn’t mean that he will not be a useful 3rd/4th line player. I mean, did you envision MSL turning him into a penalty killer? I sure didn’t. I just think he has earned a longer assessment period.

[Commandant]

11 hours ago, PMAC said:

Your assessment may very well be correct but that comparison is not. Also, just because Rempit is not going to score at his current pace doesn’t mean that he will not be a useful 3rd/4th line player. I mean, did you envision MSL turning him into a penalty killer? I sure didn’t. I just think he has earned a longer assessment period.

 

It was a comparison of level of player... a winger who is very good in the AHL but tops out as a fourth liner in the NHL on a good team. And can fill in it a centre in a pinch but not something you want him to do long term

[dlbalr]

14 hours ago, tomh009 said:

So, if he plays 24 or 25 more games, he would turn into a UFA, right?

 

23 or more games played means he's an RFA.  22 or fewer means he's a UFA.

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

23 or more games played means he's an RFA.  22 or fewer means he's a UFA.

Oh! That's the reverse of what I would have expected.

[GHT120]

17 hours ago, dlbalr said:

I forgot about the Group VI proration as a result of the shortened seasons in 2019-20 and 2020-21.  As a result, the threshold of 80 games is actually slightly lower.  That small difference could keep Pitlick RFA-eligible.  His target is 74 GP (it's actually not a flat number for everyone, it's player-specific depending on how many team games were played in 19-20).  He's at 51 and Montreal has 25 left.  As long as he stays healthy for the rest of the season (that's a big if) and isn't forced out of the lineup as players return, the Habs can keep his rights through a qualifying offer that will be for a little under a million and he'll have arbitration rights.

 

To fully understand, I looked at the CBA I (below is re-formatted)

10.1 - Unrestricted Free Agents
(c)(i) - Group 6 Free Agents ... Means any Player:

- who is age 25 or older ✅

- who has completed three (3) or more professional seasons, ✅

- whose SPC has expired and: (i) in the case of a Player other than a goaltender, has played less than 80 NHL Games ... ?????

 

Hence:

 

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

23 or more games played means he's an RFA.  22 or fewer means he's a UFA.