Jump to content

Who will be our defencemen next season?


REV-G
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

... Chychrun is 24. It is reasonable to expect 7-8 years out of him at his current level. So if there’s a deal to be made, we should certainly explore that ...

 

I agree with the 7-8 year expectation ... but my concern is that he is only under contract for the first three years of that time ... he would be a pending UFA around the time the new youngsters are getting established and Romanov/Suzuki/Caufield is at their best ... and couldn't be extended until the summer of 2024 ... could end up being a short-term addition that improves the short/near-term but not the long-term.

 

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

... There may be another possibility, though. Go and acquire a second-tier d-man on a moderate contract. Doesn’t have to be a stud, just a guy who can log substantial NHL minutes without being a disgrace. He should be a puck-moving type. 

 

This will never happen, but a guy like PK Subban, who can still move the puck but is a shadow of his former glory and who might perhaps be signed to reasonable term/amount, is the KIND of dude I mean. A placeholder who can offer some useful service and shelter allowing the young D to develop properly ...

That concept (i.e. not necessarily PK, I wonder if he won't get a tempting offer to go to one of the new US Tv networks) would make sense ... but I wouldn't call them 2nd tier ... I put Chiarot and Edmundson in that tier ... IMO they would be 3rd tier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I would not be adding top-quality veterans until we are a solid playoff team.

 

None of this “just make the playoffs and anything can happen “ stuff any more, please.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

This will never happen, but a guy like PK Subban, who can still move the puck but is a shadow of his former glory and who might perhaps be signed to reasonable term/amount, is the KIND of dude I mean. A placeholder who can offer some useful service and shelter allowing the young D to develop properly. A d-man of that profile is who I’d be looking for. And in case you’re curious, I wouldn’t rule Subban out, if I thought he’d be coming back here with the right mindset - helping a young team grow - and was willing to take a deal that makes sense.

 

A friend of mine and I were talking about this a couple of days ago.  I think PK would be a solid addition on a sensible 2 year deal: our powerplay needs a big shot threat from the blueline, and he's a reasonable middle/bottom pairing dman at this stage of his career.  He'd be a placeholder until one of our young talents can out-compete him for the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sbhatt said:

A friend of mine and I were talking about this a couple of days ago.  I think PK would be a solid addition on a sensible 2 year deal: our powerplay needs a big shot threat from the blueline, and he's a reasonable middle/bottom pairing dman at this stage of his career.  He'd be a placeholder until one of our young talents can out-compete him for the job.

 

He's not a middle-pairing defenceman.  At best, he's a #5 and has played like a 6/7 this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

He's not a middle-pairing defenceman.  At best, he's a #5 and has played like a 6/7 this season.

 

19:31 of ice time on average - ?

 

Anyway, doesn't have to be him, just some veteran placeholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

19:31 of ice time on average - ?

 

Anyway, doesn't have to be him, just some veteran placeholder.

 

Ice time (I see 18:25 for an ATOI this year which is fifth on the Devils) doesn't equal quality of performance.  They've used him out of necessity (his ice time is much lower now that their back end is fully healthy - often in the 14-16 minute range) but he is a shadow of the player he was in Montreal.  If they want a veteran placeholder, I'd be aiming elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

And where are those players now? Not guys lost 15 years ago, but today.

 

Juulsen isnt an NHLer. 

 

Who else have we lost on waivers that is a major hit.

 

Right now Brook needs to play hockey after the season he had.  Hes also not ready to play in the NHL.

 

Any plan that is just so we Avoid waivers with him is going to see him sit in the press box a lot.  And thats not good for him either.  That wont make him an NHLer.

 

To me the only plan is to send him to the AHL and hope he develops with ice time.  Cause keeping him to avoid waivers wont do him any good and wont do the team any good as he wont develop that way.

 

Juulsen, Mete, Fleury (now waivers, but lost to expansion which is similar== no room for him on NHL roster @waiverEligibility),  deLaRose, Scherback, Agostino

 

Mete is a fringe NHLer and the Habs have better players

Juulsen's situation is due to injuries

deLaRose played a few years but is a bust

Scherback suffered from poor development

Agostino never had a chance

 

Still, I do not want to lose Brook to waivers. Habs picked up a few on waivers this year that have turned out to be good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

Juulsen, Mete, Fleury (now waivers, but lost to expansion which is similar== no room for him on NHL roster @waiverEligibility),  deLaRose, Scherback, Agostino

 

Mete is a fringe NHLer and the Habs have better players

Juulsen's situation is due to injuries

deLaRose played a few years but is a bust

Scherback suffered from poor development

Agostino never had a chance

 

Still, I do not want to lose Brook to waivers. Habs picked up a few on waivers this year that have turned out to be good

 

What is the plan for developping him though if you aren't sending him to the AHL.  He wasn't NHL ready before the knee injury and now he's basically missed the whole season.  How do you develop him as a healthy scratch?

 

I think you waive him in training camp before other teams have suffered injuries, and when 100s of players are on waivers.  I think that gets him to the AHL and then you give him top 4 minutes there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I disagree with those who say we should wait to acquire players that would help our team in the now, and also agree that based on the defensive projections that have been posted on this page, we should look into acquiring an NHL ready player or two for our defensive pairings should Petry be leaving.

 

Comical isn’t the right word but I find it somewhat delusional when people state that we will not be good this year “but specifically in 3 years” we will be.
 

I understand that the mentality is actually trying to be even more rational than those who want to squeak into the playoffs in a given year, but there seems to be such little evidence to support those who always have this EXACT 3 year plan in mind. We’ve already been through many “three year” rebuilds that have led to nothing since 2000.

 

The way I view it, thinking this way actually sabotages our team from performing and guarantees nothing. “Let’s not play up to our potential and save it for a few years down the road”. Well, when “it’s our year in 2025” and our best player breaks his leg, it’ll be so much for that.  
 

I personally think turnarounds for both the better and the worse can happen much quicker in the modern NHL, and almost in any given season. 

Who’s going to win this year? Tampa? Florida? Colorado? Or will they? I mean it’s guaranteed that at least two of those teams will not win the cup and they fit the criteria that so many people are hoping for the Habs to fit in 3 years.
 

I think either way, whether you are trying to be a competitive team on a regular basis and even potentially squeak into the playoffs, or to construct a team that will be a dominant force a few years from now, it’s simply not easy to win a cup.

 

There’s a difference between trying to become one of the true top 5-6 teams that are true cup contenders (never a guarantee that those team actually wins the cup or gets to the finals), and a team that is trying to squeak into the playoffs. I’d rather try to aspire to be one of the true cup contenders. You don’t know if any of the so called top contenders will win, but I sure the hell would rather be one of those teams than a team that goes to the finals and than is last place for 95% of the following season. In the mid to late 80’s we were a solid contender. Not the best team, but regularly competitive. The oilers were the best teams in the mid to late 80’s, but didn’t win the cup every year, but I still would have aspired to have the teams like the Oilers, Habs, Flames, Bruins, and Flyers back than, or Toronto. 

 

Secondly, I don’t think anyone is saying they want the team to play to its potential. There is a difference between doing everything you can to help develop your young players to progress, and continue to sacrificing the future by overpaying (through trade or free agency), for players that aren’t going to make you anything more than a bubble team.  MB when came in overpaid or over-committed to bottom tier player like Prust, or washed up players like Briere (also tried to sign a washed up Lecavalier). 
 

Referencing some of the proposed players that are supposed to be available, do you want to give up our first pick, a top prospect and another piece for Chychrun (reported price), or try to sign another old player like Letang in free agency?  Does either help make us a true contender? Does that even make us anything more than a bubble team?  You look at the leafs, they added a much better player than Chychrun, in Tavares, and he costed nothing but cap space. Tampa, on the other hand stood firm with Stamkos (who the leafs had chased the previous year), and Yzerman took the long view of how much he could pay Stamkos to build a contender.  In Tampas first cup win, Stamkos wasn’t even a factor. 
 

We have been in cap hell (and we’re getting in filling the roster by using the LTIR available) most of the year, and we are in last place. id take the approach the rangers did, get rid of aging expensive players, get two years of high draft picks, and sign or trade for high end talent. We don’t have the luxery of being a destination of choice for top UFA’s, but you still can’t overpay for players in in trades or free agency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

An NHL ready players is one thing ... that fits in a rebuild ... but top 4 NHL established defencemen is another ... that could jump the Habs into the playoff race and impede/short-circuit the rebuild ... don't think people mean it is guaranteed that the team will be better in 3 years but that at least next season, and maybe 23/24, should be used to acquire/develop youngsters and plans add established NHLers with the purpose of making the playoffs a third year element, absent incredibly quick youth development. 

Totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

I agree with the 7-8 year expectation ... but my concern is that he is only under contract for the first three years of that time ... he would be a pending UFA around the time the new youngsters are getting established and Romanov/Suzuki/Caufield is at their best ... and couldn't be extended until the summer of 2024 ... could end up being a short-term addition that improves the short/near-term but not the long-term.

 

That concept (i.e. not necessarily PK, I wonder if he won't get a tempting offer to go to one of the new US Tv networks) would make sense ... but I wouldn't call them 2nd tier ... I put Chiarot and Edmundson in that tier ... IMO they would be 3rd tier

Yeah, a Subban today is more of a third tier player - even if he was making Chariot, Edmondson, Savard money. I’d take a flyer on him on a heavily discounted short one or two year deal, but wouldn’t give the $4.5-$5m that some articles I’ve read suggest his value next year.  You’d HAVE to move Gallagher for sure if we even considered Subban as an option though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

What is the plan for developping him though if you aren't sending him to the AHL.  He wasn't NHL ready before the knee injury and now he's basically missed the whole season.  How do you develop him as a healthy scratch?

 

I think you waive him in training camp before other teams have suffered injuries, and when 100s of players are on waivers.  I think that gets him to the AHL and then you give him top 4 minutes there. 

Yeah, unless he came in and blew everyone away in camp (highly unlikely), he brings in the AHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

What is the plan for developping him though if you aren't sending him to the AHL.  He wasn't NHL ready before the knee injury and now he's basically missed the whole season.  How do you develop him as a healthy scratch?

 

I think you waive him in training camp before other teams have suffered injuries, and when 100s of players are on waivers.  I think that gets him to the AHL and then you give him top 4 minutes there. 

 

the same way they helped Romanov and that Richarson played Mete. I think St-Louis will find a way if that is the decision from management; but to me, this is a personel/management decision and not a player-centered/development decision

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

... Mete is a fringe NHLer and the Habs have better players

Juulsen's situation is due to injuries

deLaRose played a few years but is a bust

Scherback suffered from poor development

Agostino never had a chance ...

4/5 agree, but wouldn't say Agostino "never had a chance" ... I recall having hopes for him (not specifically why) ... but I don't think he ever earned a chance at the NHL ... even though the habs gave him his first legit shot ... after 4 full seasons at Harvard, Agostino had 2 AHL seasons and 10 NHL games (1 goal) with Calgary ... then joined the Blues organization for an AHL season and 7 NHL games (1 goal) ... then the Bruins organization for another AHL season and 5 NHL games (o gaols) ... next he spent 12 games in Laval and 36 games (2 goals) with the Habs organization before being waived and claimed by the NJD, getting 4 goals in 27 games ... finally 2 AHL seasons with the Marlies and 1 NHL game (0 gaols) with the Leafs ... he is 7th in goals in the KHL this season ... glad to see he found his place, and wish him well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

the same way they helped Romanov and that Richarson played Mete. I think St-Louis will find a way if that is the decision from management; but to me, this is a personel/management decision and not a player-centered/development decision

 

 

When he is taking 1/23 spots in the NHL, i think you need a plan for him thats more than he will sit in the press box and learn in practice.

 

The kid needs icetime and its unfair to him to do that.  That was one of the reasons they waived mete, after a certain point it was unfair to the player to just keep him in the press box.  

 

This is something other players and agents notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

 

Comical isn’t the right word but I find it somewhat delusional when people state that we will not be good this year “but specifically in 3 years” we will be.
 

I understand that the mentality is actually trying to be even more rational than those who want to squeak into the playoffs in a given year, but there seems to be such little evidence to support those who always have this EXACT 3 year plan in mind. We’ve already been through many “three year” rebuilds that have led to nothing since 2000.

 

 

The fact is we are not good this year, it is not being delusional.  Even with St. Louis' magic we are still 21 games below 500 and he has done a good job.  There is a lot of work to do. 

 

There are no guarantees we will be very good  in 3 years but I think the seeds are being sown with the draft picks and young players Hugo has acquired to have a chance.  I can't think of a better approach to take than what they have done so far. It worked for the Rangers who are young and talented, they should be a serious contender over the next several years. 

 

 I don't seem to remember any former GM's stating they were  doing a rebuild, I think they were afraid to do a serious rebuild, Bergervin tinkered a bit but never embarked on a serious rebuild. 

 

I agree a lot with what hab29retired said, I want them to build a team that is a serious top 6 contender on a consistent basis. It is tough to win a cup but if you can build a consistent contender then you have a chance each year.   I think the only way do to this is to build a young core through the draft/trading veterans and then filling in the remaining holes through some astute free agent signings.  They have some great young pieces to build around but they need to get a few more and get rid of some of these contracts which will be a challenge. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be great is a team that is consistently capable of being a conference finalist — after tgat I can accept “anything can happen”.

 

Of course, we might still get our butts kicked by an occasional surprise team (such as the 2021 Habs!) but that level of team would be capable of winning more than one Cup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team has no cap space and is far more than 1 player away from competing for a cup.  To say this might take 2-3 years to do properly is being realistic imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

What would be great is a team that is consistently capable of being a conference finalist — after tgat I can accept “anything can happen”.

 

Of course, we might still get our butts kicked by an occasional surprise team (such as the 2021 Habs!) but that level of team would be capable of winning more than one Cup. 

I would want a team that finishes consistently in the top 5-6 in the regular season standings and doesn’t have any big holes (like the Leafs always have on D and G). From there it becomes a matter of probably learning from losing, and a chemistry experiment to have the right mix, and pick up the right complementary players. So I wouldn’t even say consistent conference finalist, but a team that is always one of the best teams in the league.

 

I would be much happier if we had a team like the Caps, elite talent, but struggled to get over the hump in the playoffs, before they actually won the cup, over what we have had - teams that go on a couple of runs a decade, bad were usually mediocre or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Commandant said:

This team has no cap space and is far more than 1 player away from competing for a cup.  To say this might take 2-3 years to do properly is being realistic imo.

Bingo. You can’t go in every year spending so. Much on complementary players, not having enough depth on centre or D, and still be relying  on LTIR, to ice a crappy team.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you ice the best team you can, without committing yourself to boat-anchor contracts that will weigh you down 3, 4, 5 years hence. And you make sure you have the best damned scouting and development people and protocols you possibly can, investing heavily in those areas.

 

Doing the contrary - deliberately not icing the best team you can in hope of getting a high pick - risks chasing fool’s gold anyway. We had two top-3 picks in the past decade and the results were Galchenyuk and KK. Forgive me if I don’t swoon. Meanwhile, we also risk throwing our prospects to the wolves by playing them in roles for which they are not ready.

 

Thus, I advocate trying to ice a respectable team while leaving cap flexibility for when you actually are in a position to make a jump.

 

And I agree that the goal is to have a heavy-duty, top-end team, year after year. That’s how you win a Cup: not by capturing lightning in a bottle, but by tilting the odds in your favour by having a legit contender on an annual basis. It doesn’t always work (see San Jose), but it’s a lot better than the “bubble team plus prayers” model we’ve had since about 1997.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I would want a team that finishes consistently in the top 5-6 in the regular season standings and doesn’t have any big holes (like the Leafs always have on D and G). From there it becomes a matter of probably learning from losing, and a chemistry experiment to have the right mix, and pick up the right complementary players. So I wouldn’t even say consistent conference finalist, but a team that is always one of the best teams in the league.

 

I would be much happier if we had a team like the Caps, elite talent, but struggled to get over the hump in the playoffs, before they actually won the cup, over what we have had - teams that go on a couple of runs a decade, bad were usually mediocre or bad.

 

That's a tough ask in a cap environment - few teams, if any, don't have any big holes.  Even the top contenders this year have easily identifiable weaker spots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I think you ice the best team you can, without committing yourself to boat-anchor contracts that will weigh you down 3, 4, 5 years hence. And you make sure you have the best damned scouting and development people and protocols you possibly can, investing heavily in those areas.

 

Doing the contrary - deliberately not icing the best team you can in hope of getting a high pick - risks chasing fool’s gold anyway. We had two top-3 picks in the past decade and the results were Galchenyuk and KK. Forgive me if I don’t swoon. Meanwhile, we also risk throwing our prospects to the wolves by playing them in roles for which they are not ready.

 

Thus, I advocate trying to ice a respectable team while leaving cap flexibility for when you actually are in a position to make a jump.

 

And I agree that the goal is to have a heavy-duty, top-end team, year after year. That’s how you win a Cup: not by capturing lightning in a bottle, but by tilting the odds in your favour by having a legit contender on an annual basis. It doesn’t always work (see San Jose), but it’s a lot better than the “bubble team plus prayers” model we’ve had since about 1997.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the Habs are deliberately not icing the best team they can, if they were then Jake Allen wouldn't be playing as much as he has. And I don't think anybody here is advocating that the Habs "rest" Suzuki and Caulfield to improve their chances of losing. The Habs have iced the best team they can given all the injuries etc. and I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. 

 

I think many of us are hoping they get as  high a pick as they can given that this season has been lost for a while. Of course drafting in any position doesn't guarantee anything but it improves the odds and that's all you can ask for right now.  Drafting and development must be done right, I think everyone here would agree with that. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I don't think the Habs are deliberately not icing the best team they can, if they were then Jake Allen wouldn't be playing as much as he has. And I don't think anybody here is advocating that the Habs "rest" Suzuki and Caulfield to improve their chances of losing. The Habs have iced the best team they can given all the injuries etc. and I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. 

 

I think many of us are hoping they get as  high a pick as they can given that this season has been lost for a while. Of course drafting in any position doesn't guarantee anything but it improves the odds and that's all you can ask for right now.  Drafting and development must be done right, I think everyone here would agree with that. 

 

 

 

I may be losing sight of what we're talking about - I thought the discussion was centering on directions for next season. (We all agree we want the top pick this year and are in a decent position to get it). Some seem to be suggesting we should roll with the kids and avoid trying to make the team better in the short run, so that we can pick high again next year. I'm saying we should be looking to improve the team over the summer, if it can be done without damaging our longer-term cap structure doing it; and if that means being tolerably competitive and not a bottom-dwelling suction eel, I'm Ok with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I may be losing sight of what we're talking about - I thought the discussion was centering on directions for next season. (We all agree we want the top pick this year and are in a decent position to get it). Some seem to be suggesting we should roll with the kids and avoid trying to make the team better in the short run, so that we can pick high again next year. I'm saying we should be looking to improve the team over the summer, if it can be done without damaging our longer-term cap structure doing it; and if that means being tolerably competitive and not a bottom-dwelling suction eel, I'm Ok with that. 

 

I just think our window of opportunity where we can be realistically competitive with Florida, Tampa, Toronto etc is more likely to be 3-5 years down the road.  As long as improvements during the summer don't negatively affect the longer term picture then I fine with it. I just don't think that this is the summer where you go hard after a high profile free agent unless you get a really good deal and that contract doesn't become an anchor in a couple years when you might be on the verge of being really competitive.  I don't think there will be a ton of cap space anyway unless some of the existing contracts are moved which will be a challenge for Hughes. 

  • Like 1
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...