What would you do if you were the GM?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

40 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Agreed, I'm in no rush to make one or two signings with the goal of being a bubble team next season.

 

if this takes three or fours years to do, so be it, but i want to build a long term, successful team considered a cup contender, not just lets be a bubble team, not win and then have another season 4 years from now picking top 3, and then pick up the pieces and make a bubble team again. 

 

Actually build a sustainable roster and thats going to mean SOME OF Gallagher, Hoffman, Petry, Allen, Byron, Price and others are not going to be part of it. 

 

"Sustainable" appears to be the mantra from front office: Q and A: Canadiens GM Hughes on trade deadline, St. Louis, Price and more (sportsnet.ca)

 

"People can associate a certain thing with a rebuild versus a reset or a retool; I think Doug Wilson was the first guy to use a different term. Reset is what I think he was using. My objective is to try to build a roster that’s going to include players who are here and it’s going to include new players coming in. But hopefully we’re going to put a team on the ice that can win on a sustainable basis. So, if a rebuild means we’re stripping everything down and trading everybody away, then no, I don’t believe we’re doing that."

 

That's pretty vague, really - but it does suggest that a comprehensive fire-sale is not in the offing.

[revvvrob]

Makes me wonder again why Toffoli was traded. Good production, good contract, good leadership. 
 

was he the head of the coup and not Petry??

 

just seems to me that at the end of the reset, we’d want a player like Toffoli … and it’s not like the return in the trade was overwhelming. 

[Commandant]

The Toffoli trade tells me that there are more significant trades coming, especially with wingers. 

[tomh009]

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

if this takes three or fours years to do, so be it, but i want to build a long term, successful team considered a cup contender, not just lets be a bubble team, not win and then have another season 4 years from now picking top 3, and then pick up the pieces and make a bubble team again. 

 

Actually build a sustainable roster and thats going to mean SOME OF Gallagher, Hoffman, Petry, Allen, Byron, Price and others are not going to be part of it. 

At least for now, I believe (and hope!) this is what Hughes and Gorton intend to do as well.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 minute ago, tomh009 said:

At least for now, I believe (and hope!) this is what Hughes and Gorton intend to do as well.

 

No doubt. It was also exactly what MB talked about when he took over. 

 

This is not to cast aspersions on HughGort, but I guess it's easier said than done; and one thing is for sure, it cannot be done without top-notch drafting and development.

[tomh009]

40 minutes ago, revvvrob said:

Makes me wonder again why Toffoli was traded.

(...)

Good production, good contract, good leadership. 
just seems to me that at the end of the reset, we’d want a player like Toffoli … and it’s not like the return in the trade was overwhelming.

In two years, Toffoli will be 31, and looking for the big final contract taking him to 35/36/37. That's not necessarily the recipe we want for a long-term contender.

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

No doubt. It was also exactly what MB talked about when he took over. 

 

This is not to cast aspersions on HughGort, but I guess it's easier said than done; and one thing is for sure, it cannot be done without top-notch drafting and development.

I believe HughGort are more likely to succeed because:

1. they are two talented people doing the job of one

2. they have more draft picks in the queue 

3. they have a similarly strong roster 

4. they have a deeper prospect pool

5. They seem to have carte-blanche to make the changes needed

[DON]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

; and one thing is for sure, it cannot be done without top-notch drafting and development.

To be contrary;

Drafting Crosby, Malkin were no brainers and no development needed

Toews/Kane same.

LaCalvaille/Hedman/Stamkos needed no development and easy picks. 

TB havent drafted even 1 active NHLer since 2016 draft. So smart wheeling and dealing by Yzerman seems key to current team.

 

So during crap years, need alot of luck to find blue-chip player(s) who basically cant be screwed up. And a shrewd GM working in a preferred USA destination would help team building with UFAs. 

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

"Sustainable" appears to be the mantra from front office: Q and A: Canadiens GM Hughes on trade deadline, St. Louis, Price and more (sportsnet.ca)

 

"People can associate a certain thing with a rebuild versus a reset or a retool; I think Doug Wilson was the first guy to use a different term. Reset is what I think he was using. My objective is to try to build a roster that’s going to include players who are here and it’s going to include new players coming in. But hopefully we’re going to put a team on the ice that can win on a sustainable basis. So, if a rebuild means we’re stripping everything down and trading everybody away, then no, I don’t believe we’re doing that."

 

That's pretty vague, really - but it does suggest that a comprehensive fire-sale is not in the offing.

Well, I HOPE what that means is:

1) we keep the obvious key building blocks like Suzuki, Caufield, Romanov 

 

2) Make decisions on whether the following will be more valuable when we are ready to be “sustainably competitive” like Anderson Lekhonan. Dvorak and Drouin. Also need to factor in who we want to keep beyond two years to help develop and mentor young players. If we can get a first or blue chip prospect and picks for Lekhonan, I’d move him. My feeling is you can bring in players to be mentors and help develop, a lot easier than bring in players who will be skilled and still be competitive at the right cost three years from now. So if someone gives a high return for Anderson, I’d move him as well. I’d move Dvorak if we can get at least a first back either over the summer, or next years deadline.
 

3) Move the obvious guys over the next two years who probably are not going to be worth their cap hit, and what the level of performance they would probably bring in the two 2-4 years it would take for to to have reasonable expectations of being a sustainably competitive team that is EXPECTED to make the playoffs and no longer be a team that can win IF we can get into the playoffs. The guys I hope we do move (some are going to be hard, while others are no brainers to move by the 2023 trade deadline): Chiarot, Hoffman, Gallagher, Byron, Edmondson, Petry, Armia, Allan, Price (doubt if we can move without substantial retention, even if healthy, so he’s probably staying). Move Weber if we get good return for someone wanting to get to the floor, but have low actual salary.

4) keep or move young depth guys like Poehling, or Evans, based on cost, and continual development.

 

I have included any prospects, or the garbage pickups like Pacquette, or Perreault, or fillers like Kulak, Pitlick, etc

 

So on my list, there arent a lot core actual proven NHLER’s I’d want to keep beyond two years.
 

 

[tomh009]

1 minute ago, hab29RETIRED said:

2) Make decisions on whether the following will be more valuable when we are ready to be “sustainably competitive” like Anderson Lekhonan. Dvorak and Drouin. Also need to factor in who we want to keep beyond two years to help develop and mentor young players. If we can get a first or blue chip prospect and picks for Lekhonan, I’d move him. My feeling is you can bring in players to be mentors and help develop, a lot easier than bring in players who will be skilled and still be competitive at the right cost three years from now.

I just want to note that while I agree young high-skill players are super valuable, there is far less than a 50% probability that a late-first pick will turn into a first-line/first-pairing player. Maybe someone (Commandant?) will have those percentages handy?

[hab29RETIRED]

2 minutes ago, DON said:

To be contrary;

Drafting Crosby, Malkin were no brainers and no development needed

Toews/Kane same.

LaCalvaille/Hedman/Stamkos needed no development and easy picks. 

TB havent drafted even 1 active NHLer since 2016 draft. So smart wheeling and dealing by Yzerman seems key to current team.

 

So during crap years, need alot of luck to find blue-chip player(s) who basically cant be screwed up. And a shrewd GM working in a preferred USA destination would help team building with UFAs. 

Hedman and Stamkos weren’t immediate front line players or superstars. They needed to develop - they just didn’t need time in the minors, or extra junior time. So depends on definition of development. Neither of those two had immediate results like Crosby, Malkin, or Ovechkin. I don’t think there is any player who for sure can have that kind of impact this year.
 

Lets not mix development time required outside the NHL, from someone needing time to gradually develop in the NHL, without the expectations they will contribute immediately or be EXPECTED to be a saviour, or even a top six guy.

[hab29RETIRED]

2 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I just want to note that while I agree young high-skill players are super valuable, there is far less than a 50% probability that a late-first pick will turn into a first-line/first-pairing player. Maybe someone (Commandant?) will have those percentages handy?

Oh, I wouldn’t want to even have the expectation that our first rounder this year or next would be on the top two lines right away.hope is that they would be there within 3 years.

for next year, I’d say go I may as well go in with non legit top guys, If you have to during that rebuild/reset/road to sustainable competitiveness, rather than forcing a kid into that role.

[Commandant]

Just now, hab29RETIRED said:

Oh, I wouldn’t want to even have the expectation that our first rounder this year or next would be on the top two lines right away.hope is that they would be there within 3 years.

for next year, I’d say go I may as well go in with non legit top guys, If you have to during that rebuild/reset/road to sustainable competitiveness, rather than forcing a kid into that role.

 

The point is that a pick in the 20s has a very good chance of NEVER being a top 6 guy, not next year and not in 3 years.... hope is not a plan. 

 

you get a bunch of them, put good development in place, and realize that even with that, some will fail. 

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

The point is that a pick in the 20s has a very good chance of NEVER being a top 6 guy, not next year and not in 3 years.... hope is not a plan. 

 

you get a bunch of them, put good development in place, and realize that even with that, some will fail. 

No but good drafting and development is.

 

I didn’t say to build the top line of the team with late round picks - that is why we want our own high picks for the next two years. But we a higher number of first round picks, we have a better chance of drafting another MaxPac or a Pasternak, or a least 2nd line or middle pairing dmen.  
 

The PLAn is to move guys like Chiarot, Lekhonan, Drouin, Petry,, and next deadline Edmondson for those picks.  Guys that would be probably costing too much for what they will bring when we are ready to be “sustainably competitive”. If you are moving a guy like Anderson, you want other pieces. 

 

The PLAN is also to improve drafting and development.  to me making moves like this is a PLAN. Not just hope. Hope is what we have been doing since 94.

[tomh009]

The point is that if you have a decent player (say, Lehkonen) who can add value in the future, a late first is very unlikely to give you a better player.

 

I found the probability charts on the Dobber Prospects site. They analyzed 10 years of drafts for all teams, and a late pick has only a 50% chance of playing just 100 NHL games. You might get a bottom-six forward, or you might get nothing at all with that pick. A second-rounder has only a 35% chance of playing that full season; 65% of the picks will never be NHL regulars.

 

A prospect will improve that percentage as you can assess their post-draft performance.

 

So, would I trade a young high-quality two-way 3RW for a second-round pick? I would not, if I can negotiate a reasonable contract with him. (Of course I don't know what Hughes and Gorton would do.)

 

https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/

[alfredoh2009]

19 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

The point is that if you have a decent player (say, Lehkonen) who can add value in the future, a late first is very unlikely to give you a better player.

 

I found the probability charts on the Dobber Prospects site. They analyzed 10 years of drafts for all teams, and a late pick has only a 50% chance of playing just 100 NHL games. You might get a bottom-six forward, or you might get nothing at all with that pick. A second-rounder has only a 35% chance of playing that full season; 65% of the picks will never be NHL regulars.

 

A prospect will improve that percentage as you can assess their post-draft performance.

 

So, would I trade a young high-quality two-way 3RW for a second-round pick? I would not, if I can negotiate a reasonable contract with him. (Of course I don't know what Hughes and Gorton would do.)

 

https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/

 

that is a great webpage, I have been using it too when trying to understand value of picks vs. players. The wisdom dlbalr and Commandant so patiently to share with us

 

On the other side of the equation is the declining return vs salary of veterans (e.g. Gallagher, Price). At what point Lehkonen is a good investment like a healthy Edmundson seems to be and healthy Armia seems not to be.

 

I would trade Lehkonen, Kulak for the same reason Chiarot will be traded: the return on those pending-UFA players will be at least equivalent and more cost effective than keeping them. Unless they sign a team-friendly deal

[hab29RETIRED]

40 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

The point is that if you have a decent player (say, Lehkonen) who can add value in the future, a late first is very unlikely to give you a better player.

 

I found the probability charts on the Dobber Prospects site. They analyzed 10 years of drafts for all teams, and a late pick has only a 50% chance of playing just 100 NHL games. You might get a bottom-six forward, or you might get nothing at all with that pick. A second-rounder has only a 35% chance of playing that full season; 65% of the picks will never be NHL regulars.

 

A prospect will improve that percentage as you can assess their post-draft performance.

 

So, would I trade a young high-quality two-way 3RW for a second-round pick? I would not, if I can negotiate a reasonable contract with him. (Of course I don't know what Hughes and Gorton would do.)

 

https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/

I like Lekhonen. But do you want to overpay to sign him long term, or risk having him go to arbitration, and walk as a UFA?  If his production goes down, next year we may not even get a late 2nd round pick. Those are my concerns. 
 

He is a solid 3rd liner, and is a decent second liner for a bad team. Good example to have around. But we’ve already over committed and over paid Armia, Savard, Byron. You can’t keep setting up a salary structure where you’re paying that kind of money to 3rd liners (4th in the case of Byron and Armia). We are also paying too many guys like Gallagher for past performance.

[tomh009]

41 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I like Lekhonen. But do you want to overpay to sign him long term, or risk having him go to arbitration, and walk as a UFA?  If his production goes down, next year we may not even get a late 2nd round pick. Those are my concerns. 
 

He is a solid 3rd liner, and is a decent second liner for a bad team. Good example to have around. But we’ve already over committed and over paid Armia, Savard, Byron. You can’t keep setting up a salary structure where you’re paying that kind of money to 3rd liners (4th in the case of Byron and Armia). We are also paying too many guys like Gallagher for past performance.

You can trade him at the deadline next year if he's too expensive.

 

Or you may be able to negotiate a reasonable contract with him. I seem to have lost his agent's phone number so I can't confirm this at the moment.

[GHT120]

25 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

You can trade him at the deadline next year if he's too expensive ...

 

No guarantee he will have the same value next season ... he will be a full season removed from a good playoff performance ... and ... no guarantee he will again be playing 27% over his career (up to this season) pts/game average ... also ... this being his best offensive season makes an overpayment needed to re-sign him very possible. 

 

BTW = his agent's number is CHA-CH-CHING
😉 😊

[alfredoh2009]

40 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

You can trade him at the deadline next year if he's too expensive.

 

Or you may be able to negotiate a reasonable contract with him. I seem to have lost his agent's phone number so I can't confirm this at the moment.

that is a good idea if he signs a one year extension 

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

No guarantee he will have the same value next season ... he will be a full season removed from a good playoff performance ... and ... no guarantee he will again be playing 27% over his career (up to this season) pts/game average ... also ... this being his best offensive season makes an overpayment needed to re-sign him very possible.

Yeah, I was not really specifically intending to argue about Lehkonen. My point was more that the odds of getting as good a player as someone-like-Lehkonen with a later first-round pick are quite low. You only have a 50% chance of getting someone like Clague or Brook. A "first" sounds great but it's not the same thing as an NHL-quality player.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

My thing with Lehkonen is, he's a 3rd line guy who we'd be keeping around for his value as a stabilizer and "role model" during the rebuild.

 

But with his value at its absolute peak - he is unlikely to get any better, only to decline sooner or later - there is a real danger of overpaying in both dollars and term for a player who any good organization would replace from within rather than overpay. That's what good franchises do: lock up irreplaceable core pieces, and maximize value with role-players and bottom-end guys like Lehkonen.

 

We already have Gallagher locked up on a deal that is probably untradeable to serve as a hard-working winger who can mentor the young guys in "playing the right way." So I would say, if you can't trade Gally, then you deal away Lehks for maximum return. Don't carry two "role model" wingers on bad contracts for years to come.

[alfredoh2009]

3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

My thing with Lehkonen is, he's a 3rd line guy who we'd be keeping around for his value as a stabilizer and "role model" during the rebuild.

 

But with his value at its absolute peak - he is unlikely to get any better, only to decline sooner or later - there is a real danger of overpaying in both dollars and term for a player who any good organization would replace from within rather than overpay. That's what good franchises do: lock up irreplaceable core pieces, and maximize value with role-players and bottom-end guys like Lehkonen.

 

We already have Gallagher locked up on a deal that is probably untradeable to serve as a hard-working winger who can mentor the young guys in "playing the right way." So I would say, if you can't trade Gally, then you deal away Lehks for maximum return. Don't carry two "role model" wingers on bad contracts for years to come.

agreed,

(God forbid) Lehks is one injury away from being overpaid like Gallagher. Habs will trade him, I hope for a 2nd in 2023 and an emergency call-up level RD

[GHT120]

2 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

agreed,

(God forbid) Lehks is one injury away from being overpaid like Gallagher. Habs will trade him, I hope for a 2nd in 2023 and an emergency call-up level RD

 

Not just an injury ... he is one return to the norm away from being overpaid if H&G, or another GM, buys into this season.

[alfredoh2009]

7 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

Not just an injury ... he is one return to the norm away from being overpaid if H&G, or another GM, buys into this season.

 

I couldn't disagree more. His scoring chances per 60min have always been really good but his shot % really bad after his rookie year. If there is a coach and a skills development group that can help keep "peak-Lehkonen" going is the Habs'