Jump to content

Habs acquire Kirby Dach


 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Neech said:

 

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

 

I agree with this. Not that I disliked Romy at all, but his ceiling is probably not more than a second-pairing defensive d-man. Both Dach and Nazar have the profile of top-6 C - or at least that is the theory. The merit of the trade will probably wind up hinging on whether Dach outperforms Nazar.

 

And I don't believe HuGo have had some sudden awareness that they erred with Dach. If they did, they certainly would have gone the shorter-term route.

 

I think the debate over this contract may boil down to whether we prefer, philosophically, the "show me" contract to the "value contract" idea of locking down a kid for twice as long in the belief that he will fulfill his potential and be a bargain for those extra years. There are risks on to both approaches: the Subban debacle on the one hand, the Drouin debacle on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I agree with this. Not that I disliked Romy at all, but his ceiling is probably not more than a second-pairing defensive d-man. Both Dach and Nazar have the profile of top-6 C - or at least that is the theory. The merit of the trade will probably wind up hinging on whether Dach outperforms Nazar.

 

And I don't believe HuGo have had some sudden awareness that they erred with Dach. If they did, they certainly would have gone the shorter-term route.

 

I think the debate over this contract may boil down to whether we prefer, philosophically, the "show me" contract to the "value contract" idea of locking down a kid for twice as long in the belief that he will fulfill his potential and be a bargain for those extra years. There are risks on to both approaches: the Subban debacle on the one hand, the Drouin debacle on the other.

I agree as well. Nonissue trading Romanov- actually made it excited. It was a letdown because I thought a trade for Wright was coming.

 

i would have preferred using the first myself, but HuGo appear to be high in Dach - and hopefully they are right.

 

 We actually prefer to lock up a younger player for what they may do than pay a Gallagher, Savard, or Alzner for what they used to be. I’d also pay a guy who has top 6 potential than overpay to pick up a 3rd/th line grunt like Armia, who is what he is.  The Dach deal also is much better than the Drouin contract, which was also handed out like candy almost the moment the trade was made - but Dach isn’t French, so I guess there was less urgency.

 

i don’t think it’s the same situation as Subban though. Subban, you could tell in his RFA year was going to be a stud. It was plain stupidity to not lick him up than. Only other team that didn’t lock up their young stud was the Avs with O’Reilly. I don’t think that Dach is as sure of a thing as a Subban was- and it would have costed $5m-$7m to sign Subban. Depending on whether they signed him prior to the lockout, or prior to the return to play.  But I’ll talent young players prime years any day (like Florida with Tkachuck, rather than have an old guy signed to long (like Calgary with Huberdeau and Kadri, or us with Gallagher).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I agree as well. Nonissue trading Romanov- actually made it excited. It was a letdown because I thought a trade for Wright was coming.

 

i would have preferred using the first myself, but HuGo appear to be high in Dach - and hopefully they are right.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who went through the disappointment of the trade not being for Wright.

 

As for Nazar or Dach, I believe the mentality was Dach was NHL ready and has size.  If he does end up panning out as a top-6 C, it will add a dimension to the offense that Nazar never will, unless Nazar developed into a far more skilled player.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Habs29, I’ve been using Subban as a general illustration of the risks of a “show me” (bridge-type) deal - i.e., a short-term contract for a young player whose ceiling is uncertain, which is what critics think we should have done with Dach. The risk is that the player fulfills his potential (“shows” you) and now you have to pay through the nose, rather than have him under contract at a cut rate for longer term. You never get a value contract if you’re always insisting on “show me” deals; and if you only pay for “past performance” you get a bunch of Byron/Gally-type contracts.

 

Drouin, by contrast, exemplifies the risks of the other approach - i.e., a longer-term deal for a young player whose ceiling is uncertain. The risk is that he doesn’t deliver and now you’re stuck paying him for years. I’m good with the Dach contract because I don’t see 3.3 as all that big a risk.

 

So the Subban bridge deal was the opposite approach, philosophically, to what we took with Dach. I did not mean to imply any other parallel between the two players, that’s for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

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

 

 

We can debate this to death but we will know the answer within a couple years on whether this is a good contract for the Habs or not. I hope we can look back in a year or two and say it was a great move by Hughes. It's simply a bet on Dach reaching his potential. Not all bets work out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking with interest at the contract structure HughGort is building. I believe that this is a transition year and that only in 2023-2024 will they have the structure they want.

image.png

For example, at forward, I have highlighted the contracts they have awarded.

 

The difference between M and KH-JG If is clear that MB was in an operating cycle built around Price, with his core of Ds and Fs.

Let's disregard the contracts for Suzuki, and Anderson. whom are still probably still core players but that may have different contracts under KH-JG. And Gallagher whom we don;t know how he may have been valued by the new two headed team.

 

It appears to me that Dach is projected to take on the role Hoffman, Byron, Dadonov, Drouin or Armia are currently playing. Dadonov, Byron and Drouin are on expiring contracts; Armia is as inconsistent as Drouin and both are not playing up to their contracts. In that sense, Dach's contract makes a lot of sense as a 3rd liner that can take some faceoffs and play center but may be better as a winger.

 

Training camp will provide a better view on the role the team has for Dach. But I am fine with the contract and the term if he stays healthy.

 

Once the expiring contracts are traded, we will have a clearer idea. But again, Dach's contract seems alike a decent move if he turns out to be a reliable 3rd liner. It becomes a great contract if Dach develops closer to his potential.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Habs29, I’ve been using Subban as a general illustration of the risks of a “show me” (bridge-type) deal - i.e., a short-term contract for a young player whose ceiling is uncertain, which is what critics think we should have done with Dach. The risk is that the player fulfills his potential (“shows” you) and now you have to pay through the nose, rather than have him under contract at a cut rate for longer term. You never get a value contract if you’re always insisting on “show me” deals; and if you only pay for “past performance” you get a bunch of Byron/Gally-type contracts.

 

Drouin, by contrast, exemplifies the risks of the other approach - i.e., a longer-term deal for a young player whose ceiling is uncertain. The risk is that he doesn’t deliver and now you’re stuck paying him for years. I’m good with the Dach contract because I don’t see 3.3 as all that big a risk.

 

So the Subban bridge deal was the opposite approach, philosophically, to what we took with Dach. I did not mean to imply any other parallel between the two players, that’s for sure.

Oh I agree with you. Like I said, I’d rather lock Dach up for 4 years on a deal that can be a bargain if he fulfills his potential. Even if he doesn’t, I think it’s still a trade-able contract - unlike a Armia, Hoffman  or Alzner overpriced deal. 
 

it’s still a bridge deal - just one that benefits both sides, and we still have a shot at resigning him before he is a UFA. Subban was a different case - he was as on the verge of being a superstar, and should have been signed long-term.
 

i do worry about picking up another 3rd overall pick - we’ve been jinxed with players drafted in that slot - Galchenyuk, Drouin, Kk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dach contract is not a big deal, about  $3.4M is what players like him are being paid around the league 

 

if he finds his confidence in Montreal in a reconstruction year under MSL, this contract is good value 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

We can debate this to death but we will know the answer within a couple years on whether this is a good contract for the Habs or not. I hope we can look back in a year or two and say it was a great move by Hughes. It's simply a bet on Dach reaching his potential. Not all bets work out. 

I mean realistically the worst case scenario it's contract Armia. Which isn't the end of the world. Significantly more upside to it. So I'd say it's a sound bet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

... The merit of the trade will probably wind up hinging on whether Dach outperforms Nazar ...

 

 

IMO it may be too simplistic to simply do a direct comparison with Nazar as it presumes the Habs would/should have known he would be available with that pick, and therefore made a choice between Dach and Nazar ... now if multiple players drafted around #13 out-perform Dach then it could be fair to say they should have kept the pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just dont know enough, even after reading dlbalr's write up, to have a good or bad feeling about deal.

Looking forward to pre-season to hear/see how he looks as #2/3 centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand why contract negotiations with Hugh-Gort would be “adversarial” 

That is what MB was accused of. Suban, Markov, Kovalev, Danault, etc


I thought the fans viewed the new regime to have more “amicable” contract negotiations and because of that feeling I cannot project trouble ahead when negotiating Dach’s next contract

 

Did I miss something? I have not been watching/listening to the press conferences. Is there any indication there is trouble ahead ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I do not understand why contract negotiations with Hugh-Gort would be “adversarial” 

That is what MB was accused of. Suban, Markov, Kovalev, Danault, etc


I thought the fans viewed the new regime to have more “amicable” contract negotiations and because of that feeling I cannot project trouble ahead when negotiating Dach’s next contract

 

Did I miss something? I have not been watching/listening to the press conferences. Is there any indication there is trouble ahead ?

 

It has nothing to do with what GM signed the contract but rather the situation after the contract.  There's a reason that teams generally don't do a bridge deal that takes a player within a year of UFA eligibility and that's because it gives the player all the power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dlbalr said:

This is the piece I was referring to the other day with my concerns about the Dach deal: http://www.habsworld.net/2022/09/habs-take-a-second-risk-with-kirby-dach/

I didn’t like the trade for Dach - I think it was an overpayment. I haven’t really watched Dach play, only know what I read, but based on what he’s done, I would have preferred using the pick from the Romanov trade ourselves, or have tried to make another deal to move up. I also didn’t get the hurry to make the Dach deal - I think we should have at least waited to see who was available at that spot.  
 

having said that, HuGo obviously have a much higher opinion of Dach and know more about the player and the issues he’s had since being drafted. If they believe in that player, I have no issue with the contract. I would have preferred a 6 year deal, but I doubt if we could have gotten the additional term for the same cap hit. I definitely would not have felt comfortable with paying Dach over $4m given his body of work to date. Like o said in earlier posts, I’d rather pay a guy like Dach who has upside for future projected production than what we are playing a grunt like Armia. Armia is what he is - and IMO he is overpaid like I said last summer, I would have preferred giving that term and $ to Lekhonan. Is also rather pay a guy like Dach over paying guys for past past performance, and like we did with Byron, or even worse signing guys into their late 30’s like the Flames just did with Huberdeau and Kadri.
 

I would have preferred going the two or 6-7 year route with Dach, but I think there is still potential to get two bargain years out of this contract, and having a year before UFA, is still better than walking him to UFA status. I also like this contract a hell of a lot more than the Drouin contract after we traded for him. I think the term shows HuGo believe in him, but the cap hit isn’t so high that the contract is not movable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I would have preferred going the two or 6-7 year route with Dach, but I think there is still potential to get two bargain years out of this contract, and having a year before UFA, is still better than walking him to UFA status. I also like this contract a hell of a lot more than the Drouin contract after we traded for him. I think the term shows HuGo believe in him, but the cap hit isn’t so high that the contract is not movable.

 

I certainly wasn't trying to make the case for signing him to a five-year deal that walked him to free agency.  Two or three years was the right timeline for his deal, preferably two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

When a guy like Jonathan Toews says: "... A guy like Kirby Dach who has a lot of upside and arguably didn't ever get a fair shot here in Chicago" there would seem to be cause for optimism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

When a guy like Jonathan Toews says: "... A guy like Kirby Dach who has a lot of upside and arguably didn't ever get a fair shot here in Chicago" there would seem to be cause for optimism.

 


wasn’t that said of KK by ex-teammates ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

wasn’t that said of KK by ex-teammates ? 

 

 

Not that I recall (but I'm not saying no one did).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand to be corrected, but I recall reading somewhere that Dach received significant minutes in Chicago with strong linemates and still put up weak numbers. If they didn’t give him a “fair shot” it was only in the sense of giving up on him so young. 

 

That said, it’s a very good sign that Toews is upset at losing him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OBVIOUSLY this justifies the trade ... 😜

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 8:55 AM, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I stand to be corrected, but I recall reading somewhere that Dach received significant minutes in Chicago with strong linemates and still put up weak numbers. If they didn’t give him a “fair shot” it was only in the sense of giving up on him so young. 

 

That said, it’s a very good sign that Toews is upset at losing him. 

 

I was listening to the Locked on Habs podcast this week and they had on one of the Locked on Blackhawks hosts to talk about Dach.

 

Apparently Dach had respectable numbers with good linemates.  Nothing world beating... but good solid numbers for an 18/19 year old when playing with Kane or Toews or Debrincat.  The issue was when he was on the third line and didnt have one of those guys the numbers fell off an absolute cliff.  Now of course every NHL player does better with good linemates vs poor ones but Dachs change was one of the biggest and most dramatic in his analytics.  

 

What that means is a bit hard to say.  It can be read in a bad way that he cant drive play for a line.  Or it can be read that this is a young player who plays better when given good players to work with and he will need that to grow as a prospect.  Its really something Id have to watch him more to be able to get an eye test on what is happening to cause those numbers.

 

But to say he didnt succeed with good linemates isnt true.  He did well with top quality on his line.  He just totally disappeared without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

I was listening to the Locked on Habs podcast this week and they had on one of the Locked on Blackhawks hosts to talk about Dach.

 

Apparently Dach had respectable numbers with good linemates.  Nothing world beating... but good solid numbers for an 18/19 year old when playing with Kane or Toews or Debrincat.  The issue was when he was on the third line and didnt have one of those guys the numbers fell off an absolute cliff.  Now of course every NHL player does better with good linemates vs poor ones but Dachs change was one of the biggest and most dramatic in his analytics.  

 

What that means is a bit hard to say.  It can be read in a bad way that he cant drive play for a line.  Or it can be read that this is a young player who plays better when given good players to work with and he will need that to grow as a prospect.  Its really something Id have to watch him more to be able to get an eye test on what is happening to cause those numbers.

 

But to say he didnt succeed with good linemates isnt true.  He did well with top quality on his line.  He just totally disappeared without it.

 

Wow, that is really interesting. Thanks. And yeah…hard to know what to make of that. But it certainly helps to explain why Toews clearly views him as a good young player - because whenever he played with him, he was impressed.

 

I was always suspicious of the argument that a kid is *entitled* to be partnered with top players. This was an argument we heard with KK, Eller, and Galchenyuk: ‘ how do you expect them to be stars if we keep them with plumbers?’ By contrast, I want players to force themselves up the roster through convincing play, like Koivu or Subban did. It’s an ambiguous case, though, when a kid does consistently well with higher-end linemates (something that the aforementioned trio never consistently did); he may not be ‘forcing his way up the roster’ but why look a gift horse in the mouth, if he is flourishing? 

 

Maybe this helps to explain the Habs’ strong belief that MSL will help Dach. He seems to be different from the average, scowling, hidebound, risk-averse coach, and may actually be committed to making sure the kids succeed. In Dach’s case, if this means giving him top-6 partners, hey, do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

In Dach’s case, if this means giving him top-6 partners, hey, do it.

 

Luckily we're so deep on the wings that we'll be able to put him with good wingers even when Suzuki returns.

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...