What would you do if you were the GM?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

2 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Gorton and Hughes are talking about building a more offensively-minded team, so maybe the job of the D corps will be more to move out the puck rather than building a wall in front of the net.

 

The "Clydesdale" model was always a bizarre outlier in the modern NHL. And while there is no denying its success during the Run of '21, few would bet on it as a sustainable recipe for success over 82 games. I will be shocked if this is not one of the first things that the new management team abandons from the Bergevin era. 

[dlbalr]

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

If both Petry and Chiarot are gone, there will be plenty of ice time available for young D. Too early for Guhle or Harris, I think, but that could be OK for Norlinder. 

 

At this point, I expect Guhle to be in Montreal's lineup.  He's basically NHL-ready now and I thought Harris was capable of playing on the third pairing last season so I suspect if he's signed, it will come with an NHL promise.

[DON]

Couple big Guhle-types and couple 5'11" 185lb Makar-like d-men would be an "ok" mix. Habs could obviously use a skilled offensive d-man of any size added to pool, through trade or pick.

 

Wonder how much NHL offense Harris's ceiling should be (25-40pts?)?

[dlbalr]

7 minutes ago, DON said:

Wonder how much NHL offense Harris's ceiling should be (25-40pts?)?

 

I'd go lower than that.  His offensive upside is fairly limited - he can pass but he's not the best of shooters.  He can skate really fast which is nice in transition and is a good defender to the point where he's not going to be a liability compared to someone like Mete who the Habs hoped could fill that particular role in the past.  But he's not someone who is going to quarterback a power play and rack up the assists nor is he going to log heavy minutes; he's more of a 4th/5th D (with a good chance of playing in that role).  15-20 points is about as high as I'd go for a typical season.

[tomh009]

I always thought that D-men would need longer seasoning in the AHL than forwards would. Guhle and Harris are only 20 and 21, isn't that still rather young? What makes them mature enough to skip the AHL when we are talking about sending Caufield back there?

[dlbalr]

Just now, tomh009 said:

I always thought that D-men would need longer seasoning in the AHL than forwards would. Guhle and Harris are only 20 and 21, isn't that still rather young? What makes them mature enough to skip the AHL when we are talking about sending Caufield back there?

 

It is young for a defenceman.  There is a level of maturity in Guhle's game that makes him NHL-ready now.  Then it's just weighing what's better for him long-term - playing potentially 16-18 minutes a night in Montreal or more in Laval in more situations?  I don't think he has a huge offensive ceiling so putting him in the minors to give him PP2 time probably doesn't do much for his development.

 

As for Harris, his ceiling is more limited than a lot of Montreal's prospects but, unlike those prospects, his floor is quite high which makes it easier for him to make the jump.  After four seasons of college hockey, he's a lot more polished than a lot of players coming out of junior.  And, again, if they're going to convince him to forego free agency, there's probably a promise of playing time involved.

 

Caufield has one elite element but the rest of his game needs refining.  There isn't that type of refining required with those two defencemen.

[DON]

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

 

 

Caufield has one elite element but the rest of his game needs refining.  There isn't that type of refining required with those two defencemen.

Should Caufield of been playing in Laval this past week?

(or was it a missed opportunity?)

[hab29RETIRED]

10 minutes ago, DON said:

Should Caufield of been playing in Laval this past week?

(or was it a missed opportunity?)

I think it’s been a missed opportunity for about 3 months now.

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, DON said:

Should Caufield of been playing in Laval this past week?

(or was it a missed opportunity?)

 

The Habs seem desperate to make Caufield look good ... they went to the trouble of posting this:

You can't even really see him take the shot ... just the "ridiculous (IMO) for a practice goal" smile.

[Commandant]

Playing him on the fourth line isn't exactly doing everything to make him look good though.  

 

If that's the usage, then he should be in Laval.

[dlbalr]

4 hours ago, DON said:

Should Caufield of been playing in Laval this past week?

 

He absolutely should have been.  I don't understand why they didn't have him in there, it was the perfect opportunity to give him a low-pressure environment for a few games to get him back in game shape at the very least (even if they wanted to bring him back up).

[alfredoh2009]

hijacking @tomh009 's post to answer here:

 

21 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Yes ... there are really four rough categories ...

• Need to trade, somehow or someway
• Want to trade at some kind of reasonable return
• Willing to trade if the return is even better than the anticipated future value
• Not willing to trade because the player is critical for the future

Most of the players will be somewhere in the two middle groups.

 

Need to trade: Hoffman, Armia, Chiarot

 

Want to trade: Petry, Wideman, Byron, Price, Gallagher (but we are probably stuck with him)

 

Willing to trade: Drouin, Dvorak, Lehkonen, R. Pitlick, Savard, Clague, Kulak, Allen, Montembeault

 

Not willing to trade: Anderson, Suzuki, Caufield, Evans, Poehling, Edmundson, Romanov, Ylonen

[hockeyrealist]

On 2/7/2022 at 3:45 PM, DON said:

Should Caufield of been playing in Laval this past week?

(or was it a missed opportunity?)

Damn that is such an obvious move, not like his old legs need rest.

  

[alfredoh2009]

Just now, hockeyrealist said:

Damn that is such an obvious move, not like his old legs need rest.

  

sometimes if feels like Caufield is dating Molson's daughter or has some dirt on the family.... he should be developing in Laval !

[hockeyrealist]

10 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

hijacking @tomh009 's post to answer here:

 

 

Need to trade: Hoffman, Armia, Chiarot

 

Want to trade: Petry, Wideman, Byron, Price, Gallagher (but we are probably stuck with him)

 

Willing to trade: Drouin, Dvorak, Lehkonen, R. Pitlick, Savard, Clague, Kulak, Allen, Montembeault

 

Not willing to trade: Anderson, Suzuki, Caufield, Evans, Poehling, Edmundson, Romanov, Ylonen

had just read that post in other thread and liked it.

pretty much agree with these options but think Anderson should be a “want to trade” given his price tag moving forward (he’s young enough to stick around but kinda pricey for a crappy team for next 2-3 years). I’m a fan of his and want him around but think business case supports moving him as soon as a taker presents themselves (not saying take crap return tho, and what would be a good return is not my forte).

[hockeyrealist]

1 minute ago, alfredoh2009 said:

sometimes if feels like Caufield is dating Molson's daughter or has some dirt on the family.... he should be developing in Laval !

Haha yeah gotta think there is a way to handle it so he thrives and team is better off for it.

His scoring touch seems to be coming back though… but seems Laval would be best choice.

[tomh009]

I'm largely with you on your list, Alfredo. I would swap Petry (big contract, will be well past his prime by the time the team is ready) and Armia (oversized contract but not massive, and can still help the team). Gallagher maybe in the top category?

 

Not certain about the lesser D-men, don't know what Hughes wants to build there. I'd like to keep Edmundson and Romanov, and probably Clague. But then there are Savard, Wideman (likely gone as UFA if not traded, he's already 31), Niku, Kulak ... and possibly Brook and Norlinder. Can't pick the individual players without knowing the overall plan.

[Commandant]

54 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

sometimes if feels like Caufield is dating Molson's daughter or has some dirt on the family.... he should be developing in Laval !

 

I'm fine with leaving Caufield under a coach who is going to use him on the first line, which St. Louis did against Buffalo. 

 

We also have Caufield scoring now.  As long as he's playing the way he has since the coaching change, he's fine to stay in the NHL.  

The only reason to send him to Laval is if he starts struggling again. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

12 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

hijacking @tomh009 's post to answer here:

 

 

Need to trade: Hoffman, Armia, Chiarot

 

Want to trade: Petry, Wideman, Byron, Price, Gallagher (but we are probably stuck with him)

 

Willing to trade: Drouin, Dvorak, Lehkonen, R. Pitlick, Savard, Clague, Kulak, Allen, Montembeault

 

Not willing to trade: Anderson, Suzuki, Caufield, Evans, Poehling, Edmundson, Romanov, Ylonen

 

I pretty much agree with this list. I am a fan of Anderson as he provides something the Habs lack (size, speed and aggression), he just needs to stay healthy. 

[alfredoh2009]

41 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I'm largely with you on your list, Alfredo. I would swap Petry (big contract, will be well past his prime by the time the team is ready) and Armia (oversized contract but not massive, and can still help the team). Gallagher maybe in the top category?

 

Not certain about the lesser D-men, don't know what Hughes wants to build there. I'd like to keep Edmundson and Romanov, and probably Clague. But then there are Savard, Wideman (likely gone as UFA if not traded, he's already 31), Niku, Kulak ... and possibly Brook and Norlinder. Can't pick the individual players without knowing the overall plan.

 

"the lesser Ds" during the rebuild. With the LDs in the pipeline (Norlinder, Harris, Struble, Guhle) and not much at RD (Brook, Mailloux), IMO the lesser Ds will have a key role to play: insulating the prospects and holding a spot until the next NHL Ds emerge

Edmundson and Savard seem like the vets we may keep, unfortunately as the top pair unless you are a die hard tanker.

Romanov will need the right RD to continue developing

Out of the lesser Ds, I like Kulak's game more than Clague's. Clague is probably a better option than Wideman as the bottom pair RD; after that, I rather see one of the prospects steal the spot that may go to Niku. Niku is the "if all else fails" option for me

 

I would like to agree on swapping Petry and Armia, but given the lack of depth at RD it is hard to trade Petry at all cost. Where Armia is a good depth piece on a cup contending team that needs size, help in winning board battles and the odd scoring spur.

[tomh009]

33 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I would like to agree on swapping Petry and Armia, but given the lack of depth at RD it is hard to trade Petry at all cost. Where Armia is a good depth piece on a cup contending team that needs size, help in winning board battles and the odd scoring spur.

The list I had was more of a "want to" list rather than "be able to" list. I believe that there is a greater need to trade Petry. However, as you say, he may be more difficult to move.

[johnnyhasbeen]

I would have a presser saying I will continue to talk to my players not planning to finish last 2 years in a row, while actually planning to do just that. You can't say we plan to suck and tank again next year for a top pick. I do believe and hope that is the plan. Please suck next year. Please! 

 

[dlbalr]

2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Out of the lesser Ds, I like Kulak's game more than Clague's. Clague is probably a better option than Wideman as the bottom pair RD; after that, I rather see one of the prospects steal the spot that may go to Niku. Niku is the "if all else fails" option for me

 

Clague will cost less than Kulak though.  At least for now, that's important as it's not as if the Habs are swimming in cap space for next season.  If it's mostly expiring deals that are moved out from here, they're going to have to go cheap for some of those end-of-roster roles.

[alfredoh2009]

2 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

Clague will cost less than Kulak though.  At least for now, that's important as it's not as if the Habs are swimming in cap space for next season.  If it's mostly expiring deals that are moved out from there, they're going to have to go cheap for some of those end-of-roster roles.

Good grief!

🤦‍♂️

[dlbalr]

4 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Good grief!

🤦‍♂️

 

It's one of those things few people realize - the Habs already have nearly $80 million in contracts for next year...to 10 players and there's a bonus overage penalty to be added to that as well.  Sure, Weber will be LTIR-eligible so you could effectively subtract his cap hit off that (it's not that simple but close enough for this purpose) but that would make it around $72M in spending on 9 players.  The cap is going to $82.5M so they have about $10.5M to spend on at least 11 players, likely closer to 14.  It's barely doable if everyone makes under $1M so expect a lot of entry-level players or low-salary veterans next season unless they clear out some players already signed.