Trade Habs acquire Kirby Dach

[hab29RETIRED]

30 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I agree that this was a really, really tough call for the GM. We should remember that, going into the playoffs, the Flames were widely regarded as very serious Cup contenders. No WAY in hell could he have shipped out Gaudreau under those conditions, unless he got a comparable player back (and in which case, why would the other team make that deal?).

 

I guess, in retrospect, the time to trade him would have been last summer. But Gaudreau was coming off two crummy seasons in a row; if he decided to gamble on himself in his contract year, that wouldn't necessarily have been taken as a huge red flag to the GM that he had no intention of re-signing with the organization. Also, if they had traded him when his value was at its lowest, and then watched Gaudreau rip it up with a 115-point season elsewhere, fans would still be baying for his blood.

 

And how can you negotiate if the other side prefers not to? Lots of players dislike negotiating in-season, it takes two to tango.

 

And let's face it - how often do players throw away $16 million in order to sign with any team? Unless Treliving had crystal-clear indicators that Gaudreau was absolutely determined to leave Calgary, I think he was in a no-win situation. He probably believed - quite reasonably - that if he made a big enough offer, the player would stay.

 

Now he's losing Tkachuk too. But since he couldn't reasonably anticipate losing Gaudreau, he couldn't anticipate losing Tkachuk. The two are related; e.g., if he'd dealt Tkachuk for the #2 overall pick, then he knew he'd be losing any chance with Gaudreau, etc. 

 

Just a nightmare. 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think many people thought Tkachuk was going to stay anyways. Even going back to his last deal, the feeling was he was probably going to be gone. I was shocked when his brother signed long term in Ottawa, because on the talk shows in Calgary no one thought he was going to stay in Calgary long term.
 

Eric Francis is trying to spin this as the lack of a new arena as the main reason - but than he has been a Mouthpiece of ownership on the arena issue. It’s funny he says if Calgary wants to be considered a big league city like Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, the city has to step up and get a new arena for the flames. What he fails to mention is that the owners of all three of those teams built the arena themselves. They also don’t have the majority owner living in London to avoid Canadian taxes, but wants a handout from taxpayers to foot the bill for the arena. It was already bad enough that Edmonton got taxpayers to foot the majority of the bill for their arena. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

50 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I don’t think many people thought Tkachuk was going to stay anyways. Even going back to his last deal, the feeling was he was probably going to be gone. I was shocked when his brother signed long term in Ottawa, because on the talk shows in Calgary no one thought he was going to stay in Calgary long term.
 

Eric Francis is trying to spin this as the lack of a new arena as the main reason - but than he has been a Mouthpiece of ownership on the arena issue. It’s funny he says if Calgary wants to be considered a big league city like Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, the city has to step up and get a new arena for the flames. What he fails to mention is that the owners of all three of those teams built the arena themselves. They also don’t have the majority owner living in London to avoid Canadian taxes, but wants a handout from taxpayers to foot the bill for the arena. It was already bad enough that Edmonton got taxpayers to foot the majority of the bill for their arena. 

 

My attitude is, if taxpayers fork over huge money for an arena so that the team owner can make huge profits, then the city and/or province should be entitled to a share of those profits. Not just taxes - an actual cut in the business itself. We'll give out $500 mil for an arena if you give us 30% of team/arena profits for the life of the arena. That sort of thing.

 

Otherwise, billionaire owners can damn well invest in their own product, just like any other business owner.

[BCHabnut]

Quit psyching me out. I keep seeing updates on the kirby dach thread and folks be chatting about other teams. Lol

 

But since I'm here...

 

I've always been against taxpayer funded arenas because there is almost never a financial payback in growth or visitation or spin off business etc... but I've heard other arguments which ask why theater's or parks or expensinsive museums are built. Most are financially negative, taxpayer funded ventures, but they add to a positive quality of life to residents. It's an interesting discussion. I'm still more on the build your own arena bandwagon though.

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, BCHabnut said:

Quit psyching me out. I keep seeing updates on the kirby dach thread and folks be chatting about other teams. Lol

 

But since I'm here...

 

I've always been against taxpayer funded arenas because there is almost never a financial payback in growth or visitation or spin off business etc... but I've heard other arguments which ask why theater's or parks or expensinsive museums are built. Most are financially negative, taxpayer funded ventures, but they add to a positive quality of life to residents. It's an interesting discussion. I'm still more on the build your own arena bandwagon though.

Hey slow news days, so for to keep talking something.

 

I have two more points than we can get back on topic. First, I’m steadfastly opposed to public funding to billionaires. But if they are going to, then I’m with CC, should be a share of the REVENUES from the arena - not profits, I don’t trust owners and their bookkeeping. That’s why actors want a percentage of the gross, not et profits.

Second, I’m fine with taxpayer money being used to fund necessary services (hospital, schools, etc). What pisses me off is public money going to monsterarities called art. In Calgary, along the Deerfoot, they have this ugly “sculpture”, called the ring by Deerfoot Trail. It’s basically a stick with a circle on top. Cost was around $0.5m. They cut school and health care funding, can’t clean the snow after a major snowstorm, because they have used up their snow removal budget by December, yet they piss away taxpayer money on crap like that.

 

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

My attitude is, if taxpayers fork over huge money for an arena so that the team owner can make huge profits, then the city and/or province should be entitled to a share of those profits. Not just taxes - an actual cut in the business itself. We'll give out $500 mil for an arena if you give us 30% of team/arena profits for the life of the arena. That sort of thing.

 

Otherwise, billionaire owners can damn well invest in their own product, just like any other business owner.

 

Like the books would ever show a profit ... that was supposed to be the deal with the TD Place development by Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (Redblacks owners) ... magically..........

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

 

Like the books would ever show a profit ... that was supposed to be the deal with the TD Place development by Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (Redblacks owners) ... magically..........

That’s why any deal should be for a share of the gross revenues. Most of these owners are good at using write offs to hide profitability and shelter taxes.

[Neech]

Rumours of 4x3.5 for Dach, seems reasonable to me and not crazy term like KK got.

[GHT120]

 

 

[TurdBurglar]

4 years at $3.36m AAV being reported by TSN.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Great deal. If he flops, then we have a 30-point C at 3.3 for four; a manageable outcome. If he starts to live up to his potential, then we are laughing all the way to the playoffs. Way to go, HuGo! I like it. 👌

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

I like the risk/reward scenario of this deal. Hughes is betting on Dach's potential and I certainly hope he is right. Of course if Dach doesn't pan out fans on this board will be talking about the albatross of a contract that Hughes has burdened us with. 

[Neech]

4 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I like the risk/reward scenario of this deal. Hughes is betting on Dach's potential and I certainly hope he is right. Of course if Dach doesn't pan out fans on this board will be talking about the albatross of a contract that Hughes has burdened us with. 

 

3.36M isn't an albatross, it's more of a seagull - and that's if he's barely an NHLer. If he tops out as a third liner he'll only be slightly overpaid. Great deal by Hughes.

 

 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

3 minutes ago, Neech said:

 

3.36M isn't an albatross, it's more of a seagull - and that's if he's barely an NHLer. If he tops out as a third liner he'll only be slightly overpaid. Great deal by Hughes.

 

 

 

I agree, I was being a little over dramatic. I really like the deal. 

[hab29RETIRED]

4 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I like the risk/reward scenario of this deal. Hughes is betting on Dach's potential and I certainly hope he is right. Of course if Dach doesn't pan out fans on this board will be talking about the albatross of a contract that Hughes has burdened us with. 

Contract is better than the Drouin contract and MUCH better than the Armia contracts. I think the only question that Dach has to answer for us is whether he was worth the Isles 1st round pick we gave up for him. 

[hockeyrealist]

Twice as much $ and term as was suggested by “an NHL executive” just a month or so passed.  The quote was something around 1.75 M per for two years to prove himself.

It wasn’t criticized so I was surprised there was so much support for this signing, seems the Hugo bandwagon is strong.

Hopefully it’s worth the hype.

 

Im not going to pretend to know whether this is good value at this time.

can’t help but wonder…

why he is getting paid on projected performance rather than past performance.

Me no likey.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

2 minutes ago, hockeyrealist said:

Twice as much $ and term as was suggested by “an NHL executive” just a month or so passed.  The quote was something around 1.75 M per for two years to prove himself.

It wasn’t criticized so I was surprised there was so much support for this signing, seems the Hugo bandwagon is strong.

Hopefully it’s worth the hype.

 

Im not going to pretend to know whether this is good value at this time.

can’t help but wonder…

why he is getting paid on projected performance rather than past performance.

Me no likey.

 

I think the you are right about the HuGo bandwagon being strong which is the result of the many good moves made so far. 

 

I get the logic of the 2 year prove me deal. That could go either way. The thing I like about this deal is that it takes some pressure off Dach, he doesn't have the same pressure to perform as he would with a shorter term contract. He can relax a bit, go out and play without worrying about another contract negotiation.  I think St. Louis is almost the perfect coach for him at this stage of his career. I am excited about the season and having the opportunity to watch the young kids develop. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

If you only pay for past performance, you get a bunch of Byron/Gallagher-type contracts.

 

If you pay for projected performance, meanwhile, you risk getting saddled with an expensive disappointment, like Drouin - although these are seldom as disastrously expensive as the “past performance” contracts tend to be.

 

And if you are correct in your projections, you buy extra seasons of the kid at a cut rate. So, say Dach blossoms. If we signed him to a “show me” contract, we’d have half the number of seasons of him at a discount. This way, he goes on being affordable well into what we hope is our Cup window.

 

To take an extreme case of the dangers of NOT paying for projected performance, PK Subban signed a “show me” bridge deal after having reportedly been refused a longer-term, reasonably-priced deal by the Habs. Bergevin refused to pay for “projected performance.” Subban went on to win the Norris Trophy and proceeded to squeeze Bergevin’s nuts for every single penny he could get - as was entirely reasonable of him. The Habs were then saddled with a $9 mil contract which was turned into possibly the worst contract in all of hockey, i.e., Weber’s. All a direct result of refusing to pay for projected performance. 

 

HuGo are behaving in a fashion which reflects both confidence in their judgement of the player’s potential, and an awareness of the need to buy cap flexibility in the future. It’s a gamble, yes; but as others have noted, 3.3 is not a crippling contract even if Dach taps out as a bottom-6 FW.

 

 

[GHT120]

10 hours ago, hockeyrealist said:

Twice as much $ and term as was suggested by “an NHL executive” just a month or so passed ... why he is getting paid on projected performance rather than past performance.

Me no likey.

 

Fair enough ... but the eternal question of unattributed quotes is what value should be attributed to the opinion of an unnamed, supposed "NHL executive".

[dlbalr]

I'm not a big fan of this contract.  I won't dig into it too much here as I've penned a piece that will go up on the site over the next few days but it stems around risk and leverage.  This contract gives Montreal a lot of the former and none of the latter.

[tomh009]

With regard to risk, I think the big question is what does Hugo know that we do not. They were willing to take the risk, so likely they have additional information that is not public.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

29 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

I'm not a big fan of this contract.  I won't dig into it too much here as I've penned a piece that will go up on the site over the next few days but it stems around risk and leverage.  This contract gives Montreal a lot of the former and none of the latter.

 

There are definitely two sides to this and ultimately it all depends on how Dach performs.  Hughes obviously believes in Dach's potential and he won't get every move right.  Dach is certainly not getting 3.3M/year based on prior performance.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

I'm not a big fan of this contract.  I won't dig into it too much here as I've penned a piece that will go up on the site over the next few days but it stems around risk and leverage.  This contract gives Montreal a lot of the former and none of the latter.

This contract still ends with Dach in RFA status which gives us some control. 

[dlbalr]

2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

This contract still ends with Dach in RFA status which gives us some control. 

 

Control by definition of having his rights for one more year, yes, but Dach has all the control where it counts.

[Sir_Boagalott]

I agree with @hockeyrealist and @dlbalr that this contract is somewhat questionable.

 

Also, it wasn't just 1 exec either.  Numerous analysts had compared Dach to the NYR's Kakko & Lafreneire and I believe a 3rd player on another team too.  i.e. they were all drafted in the 1st round and high and had played 2-3 seasons but hadn't done really well yet that an arbitrator would use as comparables.  Those other guys got 2-2.5 mil/yr x 2 yrs.

 

For me, this contract reinforces my previous comments and belief that Dach has an underlying issue. 

 

I tend to think that Hughes is using the old adage of in for a penny in for a pound and in a sense is doubling down on a bad decision.  i.e. Hughes probably already knows that trading Romy was a mistake.  In hindsight, the Hawks wouldn't have qualified Dach and the Habs could have just signed him; plus they ended up with Monahan too.

 

 

[Neech]

The term gives us a chance at a bargain deal in years 3 and 4, while the money isn't enough to be crippling. I'm glad it's not 8 years like KK got, and a two year deal doesn't have that much upside in my mind - if he does well we have to give him a big raise right away. At his age and pedigree we should still be able to trade him if he's a bust.

 

1 minute ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

 

I tend to think that Hughes is using the old adage of in for a penny in for a pound and in a sense is doubling down on a bad decision.  i.e. Hughes probably already knows that trading Romy was a mistake.  In hindsight, the Hawks wouldn't have qualified Dach and the Habs could have just signed him; plus they ended up with Monahan too.

 

 

 

If anything it was a mistake to trade the pick we got for Romy, not Romy himself.