GDT Game #37 Montreal at Washington 4pm EST Dec. 31

[alfredoh2009]

2 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Right when you're convinced that nothing else could possibly be worse about that game and then this happens:

 

 

 

 

 

Go Habs Go!!!

[GHT120]

12 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Frankly, I think I three years is a long term contract for Monohan given how injury history ...

 

I agree ... but there so often seems to be at least ONE general manager willing to overlook "minor details" like injuries.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

14 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

The biggest thing for Monahan is going to be term.  The AAV is probably going to be around - maybe a bit below - the $6.375M it is now on a market-value deal.  We've seen higher-end 2C's get $7M and while the contenders that might want Monahan in the next couple of months would have him on the third line, there will be weaker teams in free agency that would view him as a 2C which will drive up the cost to that range.  But how long of a deal can he get?  Is there a team willing to go 6+ years?  That might lower the AAV a bit but the risk is much higher.

 

I think the only way Montreal re-signs Monahan early is if it's a short-term contract.  If they're comfortable with, say, 3 years around his current cost, then maybe they forego the late second-rounder.  That gives them some short-term certainty, less pressure to make Dach a centre, and potentially opens up a lane to move Dvorak.  Is that worth the opportunity cost of not getting that draft pick?  I think it could be.

 

But if Monahan wants a long-term deal?  They'll have to pass.  If they're trending towards having a top-6 or top-7 pick where they're likely to get a centre, do they want to lock up Monahan that long knowing they'll be eyeing the youngster for that spot in a few years? 

 

Speaking of opportunity cost, though: say you sign Monahan to that 3-years $6.3-mil deal. There is merit in doing so as a patch up strategy until we can develop a #2C internally. We see how badly the team has stunk since he went down. That shows the importance of having a strong player in that slot.

 

However, such a contract would eat up much of the salary space needed to sign someone like Pierre-Luc Dubois - i.e., a bona-fire long-term solution to the #2C problem - over that span.

 

IF we are prepared to absorb more years of pain, perhaps the better strategy is to take advantage of the fact that we’re rebuilding and reject the “good enough for now,” patch up-job approach to major roster holes. That’s what GMs from Gainey to Bergevin have done. Maybe this time we can afford to bide our time, keep losing games, and see if a more optimal solution presents itself in due course. 

[GHT120]

34 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

... IF we are prepared to absorb more years of pain, perhaps the better strategy is to take advantage of the fact that we’re rebuilding and reject the “good enough for now,” patch up-job approach to major roster holes. That’s what GMs from Gainey to Bergevin have done. Maybe this time we can afford to bide our time, keep losing games, and see if a more optimal solution presents itself in due course. 

 

The decades of hope and pray must end ... talent must replace "anything can happen".

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

However, such a contract would eat up much of the salary space needed to sign someone like Pierre-Luc Dubois - i.e., a bona-fire long-term solution to the #2C problem - over that span.

I would be hesitant to bank on PLD as there is no guarantee that we would be able to sign him, no matter how Habs-friendly he seems in selected quotes.

 

Building on youth is the realistic alternative to Monahan, as you say, but it’ll push contention further out, and maybe players like Anderson will be on the downslope by then.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

16 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I would be hesitant to bank on PLD as there is no guarantee that we would be able to sign him, no matter how Habs-friendly he seems in selected quotes.

 

Building on youth is the realistic alternative to Monahan, as you say, but it’ll push contention further out, and maybe players like Anderson will be on the downslope by then.

 

Well, it doesn’t have to be PLD per se (although he is just what the doctor ordered, organizationally speaking; he and Suzuki down the middle would anchor a contending team for years). The larger point is that Monahan would eat up cap space that might otherwise allow us to take a run at true impact C for the duration of his contract. If the equivalent of a PLD comes up, the Habs would be precluded from bidding on him (unless they can find huge cap savings elsewhere).

 

Sooner or later the rebuild will need to be complemented by shrewd UFA signings. The two holes that seem to be emerging are a top-6 C after Suzuki, and a goalie. I recognize that this situation could change as prospects develop, but it’s unlikely we’re going to fill every significant roster hole internally and have a contender within, say, three years.

[tomh009]

17 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Sooner or later the rebuild will need to be complemented by shrewd UFA signings. The two holes that seem to be emerging are a top-6 C after Suzuki, and a goalie. I recognize that this situation could change as prospects develop, but it’s unlikely we’re going to fill every significant roster hole internally and have a contender within, say, three years.

Quite true. The GM game is all about planning how to fill the gaps, assessing probabilities and signing the right players. always with the caveat that there may be 31 other GMs trying to fill those same gaps and sign those same players. There are no certainties in this -- apart from having to deal with the cap -- which is why I am not confident about being able to secure PLD in particular, or any other specific player, for that matter.

 

Extending an existing player is always less risky as the GM is only competing with the allure (and risks!) of free agency rather than concrete offers from other teams.

[dlbalr]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Speaking of opportunity cost, though: say you sign Monahan to that 3-years $6.3-mil deal. There is merit in doing so as a patch up strategy until we can develop a #2C internally. We see how badly the team has stunk since he went down. That shows the importance of having a strong player in that slot.

 

However, such a contract would eat up much of the salary space needed to sign someone like Pierre-Luc Dubois - i.e., a bona-fire long-term solution to the #2C problem - over that span.

 

It's a tough one.  Unfortunately, they won't know the answer until June when it comes to the draft but if the Canadiens are in a position to land one of the impact centres in this draft, are they going to want to commit a long-term contract to a centre?  Right now, Dubois (or Horvat, Larkin, etc) would fit the 2C hole nicely.  If the Habs wind up with a top-five centre in the draft though, that's who they'd be banking on to be in that 2C spot and in a few years, they'd have a very high-priced 3C (or will be playing that player out of position on the wing).  

 

If you think they want a long-term guy, then Monahan as a bridge player doesn't make a lot of sense.  If they're confident that whoever they get in the draft can be that 2C though, then a Monahan type of signing (assuming they don't want to bottom out again) might make more sense.  The problem is the timing - they need to decide on Monahan by late February and won't know where they pick until April and who they pick until late June (unless they win the lottery, of course).  There's pros and cons to both options, really.