2023 NHL Entry Draft

[Longstreet]

Hab draft is so underwhelming.... last week, if I told you that with 5 picks in the first 101 they'd end up just Newhook and Reinbacher and no one else you would have called me insane. I guess drafting Mittelstadt is a consolation but drafting three goalies? Come on man. When has that happened? Sorry, this brain trust has whiffed in what was one of the best draft years in recent memory. They need up front skill and they still don't have it. 

 

[dlbalr]

An under-the-radar theme from this draft - most of the players have long signing timelines.  Hughes has spoken before about there being an upcoming crunch for prospects needing contracts and I'm thinking this might have impacted the board.  I've updated the signing timelines page; only 2 of the 9 players have to be signed before the middle of August 2026.  (Reinbacher isn't in that group but he'll have surely signed by then...he'll probably sign on Saturday if recent history repeats itself.)

 

https://www.habsworld.net/2010/09/habs-prospect-signing-deadlines/

[DON]

Did any team kill it on 2nd day, as far as 'steals' or good quality chosen in 2nd/3rd round?

[BCHabnut]

15 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Again - drafting for position , rather then BPA!

Pure speculation here but my guess is that they weren't high on Michkov for whatever reason. If Will Smith had dropped, they probably would gave drafted him. They looked at the remaining players and ranked Leonard reinbacher and others as equal. So they drafted for position. Hughes has been quoted saying that. Draft bpa, but if they are equal, draft for position.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

What next to look forward to?  Perhaps Hughes taking on some expiring contracts for future picks so some contenders can be active on July 1st?  I expect he has some extra room after losing the Dubois sweepstakes. 

[GHT120]

7 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

What next to look forward to?  Perhaps Hughes taking on some expiring contracts for future picks so some contenders can be active on July 1st?  I expect he has some extra room after losing the Dubois sweepstakes. 

Do the Habs have the roster space to take on contracts ... 11 "NHL" forward contracts  (Suzuki, Gallagher, Anderson, Hoffman, Dvorak, Armia, Dach, Evans, Caufield, Mohanan, Slafjkovesky) ... and expect they also plan to keep Farrell, and RFA RHP ... that leaves Pitlick, Pezzetta, UFA Belzile and RFAs Ylönen and Gurianov on the outside looking in ... 13 forwards ... in the same context they have 9 defencemen  (Matheson, Edmundson, Savard, Harris, Barron, Guhle, Kovacevic, Wideman and Xekaj).

 

HuGo will have to move some current roster players to make room before they can make any "Monahan moves" (whether or not for that good a return) ... I see Anderson, Evans, Edmundson, Kovacevic and Wideman as the easiest to move if they so choose ... so I am not expecting a lot of activity ... or it will be contract-in/contract-out.

 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

34 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

What next to look forward to?  Perhaps Hughes taking on some expiring contracts for future picks so some contenders can be active on July 1st?  I expect he has some extra room after losing the Dubois sweepstakes. 

What cap space?? We are still saddled with the Bergevin gifts if bad contacts to. Gallagher, Armia, Hoffman and Dvorak. On top of that we need to dump Edmondson. So not sure where the room is coming from.

 

if we had made a trade for Dubois it would have meant moving out some combination of Anderson, Dvorak, and another piece.

 

[huzer]

15 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Do the Habs have the roster space to take on contracts ... 11 "NHL" forward contracts  (Suzuki, Gallagher, Anderson, Hoffman, Dvorak, Armia, Dach, Evans, Caufield, Mohanan, Slafjkovesky) ... and expect they also plan to keep Farrell, and RFA RHP ... that leaves Pitlick, Pezzetta, UFA Belzile and RFAs Ylönen and Gurianov on the outside looking in ... 13 forwards ... in the same context they have 9 defencemen  (Matheson, Edmundson, Savard, Harris, Barron, Guhle, Kovacevic, Wideman and Xekaj).

 

HuGo will have to move some current roster players to make room before they can make any "Monahan moves" (whether or not for that good a return) ... I see Anderson, Evans, Edmundson, Kovacevic and Wideman as the easiest to move if they so choose ... so I am not expecting a lot of activity ... or it will be contract-in/contract-out.

 

 

 

You forgot Newhook.

 

I see Edmundson, Hoffman, Monahan as deadline deals, not summer. I could see Wideman and Pitlick getting waived, low round picks if they hang until he deadline, but both shouldn't be kept merely for that purpose.

 

I honestly have no clue what the summer holds. A Dvorak trade? 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

With three G drafted and a RHD prioritized, I think we can safely conclude that the new management group doesn't believe in the BPA philosophy, but rather picks for "organizational need."

 

And more than that. The Xhekaj pick seems very eyebrow-raising. I suspect we can combine it with the info that Hughes' scouting staff has a rep for asking highly unusual questions, and that Hughes justifies this in light of the particularity of Montreal as a hockey market. Probably the thought process is that the two brothers will want to play here together, and will "grow together" in an unusually demanding hockey city. In other words, Hughes at al. put a premium on considerations that other teams wouldn't, partly because of the "Montreal" factor.

 

Between the surprise Slaf pick, now Reinbacher, the three G, and WiFi II, this management team is therefore emerging as a group that behaves quite eccentrically at the draft table. I suspect they do so because they have convinced themselves that only certain types of players can thrive in Montreal. They therefore prioritze those players, when other teams would not. 

 

On top of that, they draft for position.

 

I hope I'm wrong about all this. While I'm OK with the Reinbahcer pick, I think the philosophy I just described is a recipe for longer-term disaster. We should be drafting the BPA in every instance, and then making sure they are surrounded with wrap-around supports of all kinds (including counselling) to protect them from the worst aspects of Montreal as a market. Drafting inferior talent because of "fit" (whether positional or cultural) is not only presumptuous, since it requires a belief in one's surpassing insights into the depths of player psychology at age 18. It's also, ultimately, a recipe for building an inferior team.

 

 

[DON]

Day 2 write up by Brian;

https://www.habsworld.net/2023/06/day-2-of-the-2023-draft/

[Peter Puck]

15 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

With three G drafted and a RHD prioritized, I think we can safely conclude that the new management group doesn't believe in the BPA philosophy, but rather picks for "organizational need."

 

And more than that. The Xhekaj pick seems very eyebrow-raising. I suspect we can combine it with the info that Hughes' scouting staff has a rep for asking highly unusual questions, and that Hughes justifies this in light of the particularity of Montreal as a hockey market. Probably the thought process is that the two brothers will want to play here together, and will "grow together" in an unusually demanding hockey city. In other words, Hughes at al. put a premium on considerations that other teams wouldn't, partly because of the "Montreal" factor.

 

Between the surprise Slaf pick, now Reinbacher, the three G, and WiFi II, this management team is therefore emerging as a group that behaves quite eccentrically at the draft table. I suspect they do so because they have convinced themselves that only certain types of players can thrive in Montreal. They therefore prioritze those players, when other teams would not. 

 

On top of that, they draft for position.

 

I hope I'm wrong about all this. While I'm OK with the Reinbahcer pick, I think the philosophy I just described is a recipe for longer-term disaster. We should be drafting the BPA in every instance, and then making sure they are surrounded with wrap-around supports of all kinds (including counselling) to protect them from the worst aspects of Montreal as a market. Drafting inferior talent because of "fit" (whether positional or cultural) is not only presumptuous, since it requires a belief in one's surpassing insights into the depths of player psychology at age 18. It's also, ultimately, a recipe for building an inferior team.

 

 

  Why is it presumptuous to assume they can judge an 18 year old player's psychology but not presumptuous to believe they can determine which of a large range of 18 year old prospects is the best player?  Both of these are inexact sciences.  

 

  I also don't see that there would be anything wrong with identifying particular attributes that are needed to play in Montreal and then taking those into account when drafting players you hope will become Habs.   

 

Having said that, I don't see any real evidence that this is happening.   When we chose Hutson and Beck was this because our management team is eccentric?  Were those players chosen because of some special abilities particular to playing in Montreal?

 

  We, like most teams, need goalie talent.  Star goalie are not easily obtained via trade.  Since everyone seems to feel that predicting which goalies will develop is "voodoo", it makes sense to choose goalies in the later rounds.   The vast majority of players taken after round 3 (or even 2) will not have NHL careers.  If predictions for the development of skaters is more accurate than for goalies it follows that knowing a skater is not ranked in the top 100 is better evidence they won't make the NHL.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

With three G drafted and a RHD prioritized, I think we can safely conclude that the new management group doesn't believe in the BPA philosophy, but rather picks for "organizational need."

 

And more than that. The Xhekaj pick seems very eyebrow-raising. I suspect we can combine it with the info that Hughes' scouting staff has a rep for asking highly unusual questions, and that Hughes justifies this in light of the particularity of Montreal as a hockey market. Probably the thought process is that the two brothers will want to play here together, and will "grow together" in an unusually demanding hockey city. In other words, Hughes at al. put a premium on considerations that other teams wouldn't, partly because of the "Montreal" factor.

 

Between the surprise Slaf pick, now Reinbacher, the three G, and WiFi II, this management team is therefore emerging as a group that behaves quite eccentrically at the draft table. I suspect they do so because they have convinced themselves that only certain types of players can thrive in Montreal. They therefore prioritze those players, when other teams would not. 

 

On top of that, they draft for position.

 

I hope I'm wrong about all this. While I'm OK with the Reinbahcer pick, I think the philosophy I just described is a recipe for longer-term disaster. We should be drafting the BPA in every instance, and then making sure they are surrounded with wrap-around supports of all kinds (including counselling) to protect them from the worst aspects of Montreal as a market. Drafting inferior talent because of "fit" (whether positional or cultural) is not only presumptuous, since it requires a belief in one's surpassing insights into the depths of player psychology at age 18. It's also, ultimately, a recipe for building an inferior team.

 

 

We are just starting year two of the HuGo rebuild and perhaps they are making “unusual” choices but let’s see if the HuGo peculiarities turn out to be genius. 
 

HuGo are touted as outstanding judges of talent and maybe they are on the right track. 
 

Bergevin regime liked to pick NHL players as is evidenced by our glut of bottom 6 players but they never swung for the fences. 
 

Let’s see if HuGo pop out a gem 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

3 hours ago, DON said:

Day 2 write up by Brian;

https://www.habsworld.net/2023/06/day-2-of-the-2023-draft/

 

Just outstanding work by our man Brian. 👍

 

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

We are just starting year two of the HuGo rebuild and perhaps they are making “unusual” choices but let’s see if the HuGo peculiarities turn out to be genius. 
 

HuGo are touted as outstanding judges of talent and maybe they are on the right track. 
 

Bergevin regime liked to pick NHL players as is evidenced by our glut of bottom 6 players but they never swung for the fences. 
 

Let’s see if HuGo pop out a gem 

 

Yes, the eccentricity may mean that Hugo are seeing things others aren’t, as opposed to being too clever and making mistakes. I hope so, obviously.

 

2 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

  Why is it presumptuous to assume they can judge an 18 year old player's psychology but not presumptuous to believe they can determine which of a large range of 18 year old prospects is the best player?  Both of these are inexact sciences.  

 

  I also don't see that there would be anything wrong with identifying particular attributes that are needed to play in Montreal and then taking those into account when drafting players you hope will become Habs.   

 

Having said that, I don't see any real evidence that this is happening.   When we chose Hutson and Beck was this because our management team is eccentric?  Were those players chosen because of some special abilities particular to playing in Montreal?

 

  We, like most teams, need goalie talent.  Star goalie are not easily obtained via trade.  Since everyone seems to feel that predicting which goalies will develop is "voodoo", it makes sense to choose goalies in the later rounds.   The vast majority of players taken after round 3 (or even 2) will not have NHL careers.  If predictions for the development of skaters is more accurate than for goalies it follows that knowing a skater is not ranked in the top 100 is better evidence they won't make the NHL.

 

Yes, projecting prospects is an uncertain enterprise. IF indeed the Habs are adding an extra layer of trying to determine how a kid will fare in the supposedly extreme Montreal environment, they are making their job much more complicated and therefore increasing the chances of mistakes IMHO. Not to mention that it is inherently dubious to pick inferior talent on the basis of their supposed “compatibility” with Montreal, whatever that is taken to mean.

 

I hope I’m wrong, like I said. But picking WiFi II way higher than they needed to is the big red flag to me. Combined with those other eccentricities we've been talking about, it's suggestive of a group whose commitment to things other than BPA is distorting their judgement.

 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

What cap space?? We are still saddled with the Bergevin gifts if bad contacts to. Gallagher, Armia, Hoffman and Dvorak. On top of that we need to dump Edmondson. So not sure where the room is coming from.

 

if we had made a trade for Dubois it would have meant moving out some combination of Anderson, Dvorak, and another piece.

 

 

I believe once Price goes on LTIR again they will have approx 9M left. They still have to sign Pinard and Newhook. So I think they will have 5-6M left.  Please correct me if my calculations are wrong. 

[hab29RETIRED]

3 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

  Why is it presumptuous to assume they can judge an 18 year old player's psychology but not presumptuous to believe they can determine which of a large range of 18 year old prospects is the best player?  Both of these are inexact sciences.  

 

  I also don't see that there would be anything wrong with identifying particular attributes that are needed to play in Montreal and then taking those into account when drafting players you hope will become Habs.   

 

Having said that, I don't see any real evidence that this is happening.   When we chose Hutson and Beck was this because our management team is eccentric?  Were those players chosen because of some special abilities particular to playing in Montreal?

 

  We, like most teams, need goalie talent.  Star goalie are not easily obtained via trade.  Since everyone seems to feel that predicting which goalies will develop is "voodoo", it makes sense to choose goalies in the later rounds.   The vast majority of players taken after round 3 (or even 2) will not have NHL careers.  If predictions for the development of skaters is more accurate than for goalies it follows that knowing a skater is not ranked in the top 100 is better evidence they won't make the NHL.

I have no issues with drafting for need in later rounds. I also actually support drafting goalies with later picks. despite the great career Price had, I hate taking goalies in the top 10.

 

having said all that, I believe strongly that in the first two rounds you take the BPA. Maybe they are right and it turns out to be Reinbacher. But this was touted as one of the most forward slanted draft in recent history. It was also supposed to be one of the deepest drafts since 2003, with one and potentially 2 generational type talents and  6 or 7 franchise forwards. The top 6 or 7 forwards available this year are potentially better than the number one overall we got last year. And we pick a dman??? We’ve had what, one 80 point player since the 93 cup season? No 50 goal scorer since Richer, no 100 point player since Naslund, and we pick a dman??? All I can say is that Reinbacher better be as good as better than Seider, otherwise this will be a colossal failure and a waste of a bottom 5 finish.

 

[Sir_Boagalott]

28 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I have no issues with drafting for need in later rounds. I also actually support drafting goalies with later picks. despite the great career Price had, I hate taking goalies in the top 10.

 

The top 6 or 7 forwards available this year are potentially better than the number one overall we got last year.

 

I don't really like seeing Goalies selected in the first 3 rounds and possibly 4th rnd too.  Goalies are usually somewhat easy to get because a lot of teams draft them and don't have faith in them.  ex:  fairly early in the season last year the Sharks traded Adin Hill to Vegas for a 3rd rnd pick.  I remember when that trade happened thinking damn I wonder if Hughes knew about that and could have gotten in on it.  That would have been a good idea.  

 

According to rumours, apparently the Preds offered Hughes Askarov in an attempt to get the Habs 5th.   Personally, I'd love to have Askarov; but as high on him as I am I doubt that I would have traded the 5th for him and Nash's 15th pick.    I wonder if Nash offered anything else to sweeten the deal.

 

I found it somewhat hard to believe but I read that some scouts claimed that if Slaf was in this draft he wouldn't have been picked in the 1st rnd.  

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

51 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I have no issues with drafting for need in later rounds. I also actually support drafting goalies with later picks. despite the great career Price had, I hate taking goalies in the top 10.

 

having said all that, I believe strongly that in the first two rounds you take the BPA. Maybe they are right and it turns out to be Reinbacher. But this was touted as one of the most forward slanted draft in recent history. It was also supposed to be one of the deepest drafts since 2003, with one and potentially 2 generational type talents and  6 or 7 franchise forwards. The top 6 or 7 forwards available this year are potentially better than the number one overall we got last year. And we pick a dman??? We’ve had what, one 80 point player since the 93 cup season? No 50 goal scorer since Richer, no 100 point player since Naslund, and we pick a dman??? All I can say is that Reinbacher better be as good as better than Seider, otherwise this will be a colossal failure and a waste of a bottom 5 finish.

 

 

Well, I can see the rationale for not taking Michkov. I personally would have preferred that we go for the potential superstar even with an element of risk; but it seems to me that declining to do so is a legitimate decision. “Our rebuild cannot afford a meaningful risk of getting zero return on our 5th overall pick.”

 

So - and I’m asking honestly, not trolling - how many of these franchise forwards did we really pass on, other than him? Leonard? (I have to admit he sounded extremely tempting, like a Tkachuk). Danielson? Dvorsky? Simashev? All of the above? Or is this agitation mainly informed by the Michkov scenario? 

 

I myself don’t like the idea of DR topping our as a #2 guy, per Hughes. The ‘best defenceman’ in a draft year should be a #1 guy. But I like defencemen - I see them as more valuable than FWs in general - so I’m open to this pick. And I’m not sure what Seider has to do with it, or why Seider is the bare minimum. If this guy becomes Ryan McDonagh, is that an acceptable outcome - ?

 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well, I can see the rationale for not taking Michkov. I personally would have preferred that we go for the potential superstar even with an element of risk; but it seems to me that declining to do so is a legitimate decision. “Our rebuild cannot afford a meaningful risk of getting zero return on our 5th overall pick.”

 

So - and I’m asking honestly, not trolling - how many of these franchise forwards did we really pass on, other than him? Leonard? (I have to admit he sounded extremely tempting, like a Tkachuk). Danielson? Dvorsky? Simashev? All of the above? Or is this agitation mainly informed by the Michkov scenario? 

 

I myself don’t like the idea of DR topping our as a #2 guy, per Hughes. The ‘best defenceman’ in a draft year should be a #1 guy. But I like defencemen - I see them as more valuable than FWs in general - so I’m open to this pick. And I’m not sure what Seider has to do with it, or why Seider is the bare minimum. If this guy becomes Ryan McDonagh, is that an acceptable outcome - ?

 

 

I wanted Michkov or Leonard. From all reports those two, along with the first four picks would have gone ahead of Slafkovsky, and used the 31 and 37 to draft a dmen. Instead we got a 3rd line C/2nd line infer for 31 and 37, and probably a middle pairing and hopefully. # 2 for that top pairing.

 

For a bottom 5 finish, I want guys with higher ceilings.

 

I mentioned Seider, as a recent guy who was picked earlier than projected, but turned out to be a good pick. Having said that, I think Seider is a long way from being McDonough. I’d be pretty happy if Reinbaacher  was close to McDobough. But not so much of Michkov is Bure or better and Leonard is close to Tkachuk.

[Sir_Boagalott]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well, I can see the rationale for not taking Michkov. I personally would have preferred that we go for the potential superstar even with an element of risk; but it seems to me that declining to do so is a legitimate decision. “Our rebuild cannot afford a meaningful risk of getting zero return on our 5th overall pick.”

 

So - and I’m asking honestly, not trolling - how many of these franchise forwards did we really pass on, other than him? Leonard? (I have to admit he sounded extremely tempting, like a Tkachuk). Danielson? Dvorsky? Simashev? All of the above? Or is this agitation mainly informed by the Michkov scenario? 

 

I myself don’t like the idea of DR topping our as a #2 guy, per Hughes. The ‘best defenceman’ in a draft year should be a #1 guy. But I like defencemen - I see them as more valuable than FWs in general - so I’m open to this pick. And I’m not sure what Seider has to do with it, or why Seider is the bare minimum. If this guy becomes Ryan McDonagh, is that an acceptable outcome - ?

 

 

 

It is true that this pick cannot be a dud, and Reinbacher is no dud.

 

My agitation was due to their offensive need.  People say the cliché of you win with defense.  Well, its undeniable that the Habs have heavily been defensive minded for 30 years.  How many Cups have the won?  Nash and SJ had great top 4 dmen, how many Cups did they win?  The answer to those Q's is 0.  Hence, I'm bloody well sick of it.

 

My initial shock has worn off and I've clamed on the choice, but it still isn't what I would have done.  They needed more offense than defense.  

 

Due to the draft having so offensive talent I didn't do a lot of due diligence on Reinbacher.  If he is only McDonagh then its a huge fail - big time.  He wont be as tough as McDonough.  I think numerous of the picks that went after him will be 80-100 pt guys.  ex:  Leonard, Dvorsky (I was high on him).  However, it is possible that he is the next Roman Josi.  That is apparently why Nashville wanted the 5th pick, and surprisingly other teams too.  Apparently, Hughes isn't the only GM that would have made that choice.  Numerous teams  scouts think that he could turn out to be an 80+ pts dman.   ex:  15 g 65+ a. 

 

He's apparently a great passer and at starting rushes, and really good with long passes.  I'm wondering if he can feed Cole a ton of breakaway passes that Cole can get 60g?  Is 70 for Cole now even possible?   Reinbacher wont score a lot of goals but he should help create a ton of offense.  

 

Besides, now that the Habs have Reinbacher they are all but guaranteed to win a Cup.  i.e. the last 5 teams to win the Cup had a dman drafted in the top 5.  😝

 

[Prime Minister Koivu]

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

Many here are disappointed (perhaps me a little) because we read all the hype regarding certain prospects and we want the exciting prospect. I get that. However I don't think there are too many pro scouts on this board (certainly not me) and I don't think many of us investigated Reinbacher too carefully before the draft (I didn't) as it was more fun to read about Michkov, Smith. Leonard etc.  Time will tell whether it was a good pick or not. Organizational need and BPA were probably pretty closely aligned with this pick. I was hoping to get a stud center, didn't get it so I guess we move on. Obviously trades are difficult to make and I don't expect the Habs to chase any UFA's so perhaps the excitement is over for now. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

On another note, I spent about an hour last night going through all the conditions of the 1st round pick we got from Calgary for the Monahan trade. I actually think I understand it now but I am not going to try and explain it though. LOL

[ehjay]

i wanted to post some thoughts/feelings on a board where i like folks and Value their thoughts.

i try not to rant too much or often but i got a small one...

 

Habs draft time is; what i would guess, would be Easter for a Christian. The promise of the Glory of the Cup revived in the hopes placed in a future savior. I Absolutely Love this time of the year!!

 

i still don't get why the KH made the pickS he made but i got Faith in the man to bring the Team to the Promise land of Flowing Champagne and Rings. I might have a little bias bcuz man initials same as mine backwards but i've liked most of his moves so far and i he seems as a Good maybe even Great General.

 

thanks for putting up with my rant   

[GHT120]

20 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

What next to look forward to?  Perhaps Hughes taking on some expiring contracts for future picks so some contenders can be active on July 1st?  I expect he has some extra room after losing the Dubois sweepstakes. 

 

20 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

What cap space??

 

15 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I believe once Price goes on LTIR again they will have approx 9M left. They still have to sign Pinard and Newhook. So I think they will have 5-6M left.  Please correct me if my calculations are wrong. 

 

 

The issue is not just cap space(*), it is also roster space ... once Newhook and RHP are signed the Habs will have 13 forwards that at this point will be expected to start the season in Montreal (in alphabetical order: Anderson, Armia, Caufield, Dach, Dvorak, Evans, Gallagher, Harvey-Pinard, Hoffman, Monahan, Newhook, Slafkovsky and Suzuki) ... Pezzetta and Pitlick are also under contract ... as well as Ylönen (RFA), Gurianov (RFA) and Belzile (UFA) who played with the Habs last season ... on defence they have 9 such "regulars (Barron, Edmundson, Guhle, Harris, Kovacevic, Matheson, 
Savard, Wideman, Xhekaj) under contract.

 

They just don't have the NHL roster space next season to take on contracts ... I expect Evans would be tradeable, maybe Dvorak... otherwise they will have to move out a contract(s) before being able to take on any.

 

(*) - To be safe, let's say Newhook gets a Dach-like deal (4yrs @ 3.3 and RHP $1M ... Habs will have about $4.4M in cap space
 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

26 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

The issue is not just cap space(*), it is also roster space ... once Newhook and RHP are signed the Habs will have 13 forwards that at this point will be expected to start the season in Montreal (in alphabetical order: Anderson, Armia, Caufield, Dach, Dvorak, Evans, Gallagher, Harvey-Pinard, Hoffman, Monahan, Newhook, Slafkovsky and Suzuki) ... Pezzetta and Pitlick are also under contract ... as well as Ylönen (RFA), Gurianov (RFA) and Belzile (UFA) who played with the Habs last season ... on defence they have 9 such "regulars (Barron, Edmundson, Guhle, Harris, Kovacevic, Matheson, 
Savard, Wideman, Xhekaj) under contract.

 

They just don't have the NHL roster space next season to take on contracts ... I expect Evans would be tradeable, maybe Dvorak... otherwise they will have to move out a contract(s) before being able to take on any.

 

(*) - To be safe, let's say Newhook gets a Dach-like deal (4yrs @ 3.3 and RHP $1M ... Habs will have about $4.4M in cap space
 

 

Good point, roster space is an issue. Maybe Hughes can be creative but I expect tomorrow will be a quiet day for the Habs.  But, sometimes things happen when you least expect it.