Big Picture Ideas, Questions and Predictions Based on Cap Management, Team Construction and the Theory of Everything

[Butterface]

From this La Presse story:

 

https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey/2025-01-09/rondelle-libre/que-vaut-jake-evans.php#

 

If Jake Evans wants to extend his career in Montreal as he claims, it's not far-fetched to imagine a four- or five-year deal for $3 million per season. He's making $1.7 million this year. If he wants a little more money per year, would the Canadiens be willing to push the bill up to $3.5 million, but for a year or two less?

 

If the Evans clan is too greedy, they will have to resolve to trade him before the trade deadline, whether the playoffs are within the team's reach or not. The Canadiens, after all, are not a Stanley Cup contender.

 

Getting a first-round pick for his services is no longer unthinkable. Pierre LeBrun said this week on his Athletic Commission Radar podcast, hosted by Anthony Desaulniers, that the New Jersey Devils could be interested in his services.

A late first-round pick rarely produces stars, but Montreal would probably rather get an extra pick than hand out a nasty contract.

 

In this eventuality, the arrival of Ivan Demidov next year would allow Alex Newhook to be placed at the center of a third trio and perhaps to find a fourth center not too expensive while waiting for Owen Beck to emerge.

 

 

The story gave some examples of contracts before offering the 3 million per season. It seems reasonable. I hope this is where he lands. It would be even better if he was traded and then returned to sign in the summer.

 

Can you trade a player with a wink ?

 

I would offer that you just place Owen Beck at centre and not bring in a new centre. I think Beck between Gallagher and Anderson would insulate him enough.

 

Then another line where Kapanen and Newhook switch or Kapanen gets a wing as Newhook’s apprentice.

[hab29RETIRED]

50 minutes ago, Butterface said:

From this La Presse story:

 

https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/hockey/2025-01-09/rondelle-libre/que-vaut-jake-evans.php#

 

If Jake Evans wants to extend his career in Montreal as he claims, it's not far-fetched to imagine a four- or five-year deal for $3 million per season. He's making $1.7 million this year. If he wants a little more money per year, would the Canadiens be willing to push the bill up to $3.5 million, but for a year or two less?

 

If the Evans clan is too greedy, they will have to resolve to trade him before the trade deadline, whether the playoffs are within the team's reach or not. The Canadiens, after all, are not a Stanley Cup contender.

 

Getting a first-round pick for his services is no longer unthinkable. Pierre LeBrun said this week on his Athletic Commission Radar podcast, hosted by Anthony Desaulniers, that the New Jersey Devils could be interested in his services.

A late first-round pick rarely produces stars, but Montreal would probably rather get an extra pick than hand out a nasty contract.

 

In this eventuality, the arrival of Ivan Demidov next year would allow Alex Newhook to be placed at the center of a third trio and perhaps to find a fourth center not too expensive while waiting for Owen Beck to emerge.

 

 

The story gave some examples of contracts before offering the 3 million per season. It seems reasonable. I hope this is where he lands. It would be even better if he was traded and then returned to sign in the summer.

 

Can you trade a player with a wink ?

 

I would offer that you just place Owen Beck at centre and not bring in a new centre. I think Beck between Gallagher and Anderson would insulate him enough.

 

Then another line where Kapanen and Newhook switch or Kapanen gets a wing as Newhook’s apprentice.

Not sure I'd any Kapanan would one Newhook's apprentice. Newhook isn't exactly looked great at centre himself. He certainly hasn't looked anywhere near as capable as Evans either.

 

i think you sign Evans to a 4-5 year deal and let Beck and Kapanan show they belong at camp next year- rather than expecting them to be ready to step in. 

 

id move Savard and if the return is good move  Matheson and the draft - unless Guérin has a brain cramp at the deadline and offers up Buium.

 

 

[Butterface]

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Not sure I'd any Kapanan would one Newhook's apprentice. Newhook isn't exactly looked great at centre himself. He certainly hasn't looked anywhere near as capable as Evans either.

I realize all that but Newhook has more experience and would be on the same line… so you take what you can get.

 

Based on Hughes I think we keep Matheson a bit longer than that, but I don’t think you’re wrong either. It will depend on where Hughes thinks the D is.

[Commandant]

25 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Not sure I'd any Kapanan would one Newhook's apprentice. Newhook isn't exactly looked great at centre himself. He certainly hasn't looked anywhere near as capable as Evans either.

 

i think you sign Evans to a 4-5 year deal and let Beck and Kapanan show they belong at camp next year- rather than expecting them to be ready to step in. 

 

id move Savard and if the return is good move  Matheson and the draft - unless Guérin has a brain cramp at the deadline and offers up Buium.

 

 

 

I keep saying it.  If this organization thought Newhook was a centre, they would actually play him some games at centre.  Something he has done none of this year.

[Butterface]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

I keep saying it.  If this organization thought Newhook was a centre, they would actually play him some games at centre.  Something he has done none of this year.

 

Do you want to trade for a centre for just a year or two without Evans before Kapanen and Beck are ready ?

 

I think Newhook is out the door as his contract expires, even before. 

[tomh009]

I think Kapanen might be ready next season, at least for a 4C role. He was pretty decent early this season before being shipped to Sweden, and will have a full year more pro experience (NHL+SHL) than he had at the start of this season.

 

Beck looks good in the AHL, but is he ready for the NHL, that's the big question.

 

And I'm actually more worried about the PK if we lose all of Armia, Dvorak and Evans for next season.

[Commandant]

1 hour ago, Butterface said:

 

Do you want to trade for a centre for just a year or two without Evans before Kapanen and Beck are ready ?

 

I think Newhook is out the door as his contract expires, even before. 

 

If Evans leaves we need a third line centre.  There should be someone in free agency. 

This team is fighting for a playoff spot.  You can't expect rookies to come in and play top lines and kill penalties in the role Evans is.  That is bad for their development, as when they inevitably fail, its a loss of confidence.  You are also going to have them so focused on defence that their offensive game will not develop at the NHL level.  Putting them in a role to fail is not ideal development.   If they are in the NHL, they should be put into a role where they can develop at both ends and arent asked too much, at least at first.  

 

And I don't think making Newhook a centre is going to go well.  If the coaches had confidence there, he'd already do it. 

 

As for what happens with contracts and stuff, I'll repeat what I said before.... ALL OPTIONS ARE OPEN and play will dictate it.  Of course Hughes has a plan, but I think its much more flexible than what you have been doing in the thread, its an outline and there isn't plans to get rid of Newhook at this point.... there are plans for if Newhook develops and plans for if he doesn't (As a winger), its not as rigid as you make it. 

[Dalhabs]

Id sign Evans 5 years for 3M.

[Butterface]

41 minutes ago, Commandant said:

As for what happens with contracts and stuff, I'll repeat what I said before.... ALL OPTIONS ARE OPEN and play will dictate it.  Of course Hughes has a plan, but I think its much more flexible than what you have been doing in the thread, its an outline and there isn't plans to get rid of Newhook at this point.... there are plans for if Newhook develops and plans for if he doesn't (As a winger), its not as rigid as you make it. 

I definitely have a set plan in my mind, but It also hinges on play. I was skeptical about Laine, but I’ve pencilled him in longer. I was skeptical about Dach, but I have pencilled him in longer. I don’t think there is room for Newhook roster-wise regardless of anything. Newhook has trade value. I suspect Struble and Engstrom will battle it out. So I’m not as rigid as you may think, but I definitely have a plan in my head worked out until 2029-30.

 

I won’t deny I see it more black and white than most, but I am not as rigid as you might think I am.

 

I have options for only Evans staying or going. The other UFAs are gone in my mind. Unless they are un-tradable.

 

As for bringing in a centre… I am open in free agency, if the dollar value is appropriate. 

 

 

[Butterface]

34 minutes ago, Dalhabs said:

Id sign Evans 5 years for 3M.

yeah, I think we all would.

[Butterface]

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

Beck looks good in the AHL, but is he ready for the NHL, that's the big question.

 

And I'm actually more worried about the PK if we lose all of Armia, Dvorak and Evans for next season.

You think Beck is behind Kapanen ?

 

Yes, the PK will suffer, but the new guys will learn. Don’t forget it’s Savard as well. 4 PK guys. Hurts. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

49 minutes ago, Dalhabs said:

Id sign Evans 5 years for 3M.

 

So would I. The big question is would Evans?  I suspect he is looking for a number closer to 4. 

[Commandant]

A plan that sets out til 2030 and when to let each player go, is very rigid by its very nature.  

This is why I say a GM will have like 6 or 7 different options for how his 2030 roster will look, its not one set spreadsheet.  There is way more maneuverability in how GMs operate. 

[Butterface]

14 minutes ago, Commandant said:

A plan that sets out til 2030 and when to let each player go, is very rigid by its very nature.  

This is why I say a GM will have like 6 or 7 different options for how his 2030 roster will look, its not one set spreadsheet.  There is way more maneuverability in how GMs operate. 

Basically instead of me sitting and making up the plan as it plays out in front of me, I have already made the plan and will tweak if things change. Because many decisions are based on cap management, I look far in advance to be able to see issues. I fit players I want to keep and make early plans for trading out players I see as not fitting. If they surprise like Laine is so far, I incorporate them in. If I see they don’t fit, I prepare to flush them. I’m preparing to flush Evans and maybe Struble. I am not as optimistic about Evans as I am Dach.

 

I guess the rigidity in my plan that you see is my adherence to the salary cap. 

[GHT120]

8 minutes ago, Butterface said:

Basically instead of me sitting and making up the plan as it plays out in front of me, I have already made the plan and will tweak if things change. Because many decisions are based on cap management, I look far in advance to be able to see issues. I fit players I want to keep and make early plans for trading out players I see as not fitting. If they surprise like Laine is so far, I incorporate them in. If I see they don’t fit, I prepare to flush them. I’m preparing to flush Evans and maybe Struble. I am not as optimistic about Evans as I am Dach.

 

I guess the rigidity in my plan that you see is my adherence to the salary cap. 

I think the distinction is that while yours is an OK approach for a fan, actual GMs need to be far more flexible to not be caught scrambling if the unexpected occurs.

[Commandant]

20 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I think the distinction is that while yours is an OK approach for a fan, actual GMs need to be far more flexible to not be caught scrambling if the unexpected occurs.

 

Yes, 100%.

 

And the rest of us aren't necessarily adhering to the spreadsheets and plans that have been made.  We look at options. 

 

Three years ago, the spread sheet wouldn't have had areas to trade Barron for Carrier, or to acquire Laine.   But the way a real GM works is to have the flexibility to take advantages of opportunities that present themselves. 

[tomh009]

2 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Id sign Evans 5 years for 3M.

But would Evans?

[hab29RETIRED]

5 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

If Evans leaves we need a third line centre.  There should be someone in free agency. 

This team is fighting for a playoff spot.  You can't expect rookies to come in and play top lines and kill penalties in the role Evans is.  That is bad for their development, as when they inevitably fail, its a loss of confidence.  You are also going to have them so focused on defence that their offensive game will not develop at the NHL level.  Putting them in a role to fail is not ideal development.   If they are in the NHL, they should be put into a role where they can develop at both ends and arent asked too much, at least at first.  

 

And I don't think making Newhook a centre is going to go well.  If the coaches had confidence there, he'd already do it. 

 

As for what happens with contracts and stuff, I'll repeat what I said before.... ALL OPTIONS ARE OPEN and play will dictate it.  Of course Hughes has a plan, but I think its much more flexible than what you have been doing in the thread, its an outline and there isn't plans to get rid of Newhook at this point.... there are plans for if Newhook develops and plans for if he doesn't (As a winger), its not as rigid as you make it. 

I also like hind weed have to sign someone else - which is why I'd rather resign Evans. He's a guy who has always given an honest effort and has shown progress through his career. He just had bad injury luck. I don't think his shooting percentage rate is sustainable, but the rest of his game is. Give him the maximum amount of front load in contract for a 4-5 yr deal to keep the cap hit as low as possible, as long as there is no trade protection involved. if he does get surpassed move him. We need him

now and he is part of the positive culture that we have.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

3 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I also like hind weed have to sign someone else - which is why I'd rather resign Evans. He's a guy who has always given an honest effort and has shown progress through his career. He just had bad injury luck. I don't think his shooting percentage rate is sustainable, but the rest of his game is. Give him the maximum amount of front load in contract for a 4-5 yr deal to keep the cap hit as low as possible, as long as there is no trade protection involved. if he does get surpassed move him. We need him

now and he is part of the positive culture that we have.

 

I think almost everyone here would like to resign Evans. The question is, at what cost?  At 3 million a year I sign him, at  4 million I don't. 

 

No question his shooting percentage is not sustainable. If you look at his entire career he has averaged 10 goals and 21 assists per 82 games (including this year).  He is also excellent defensively, a great penalty killer and by all accounts a great team guy. I am not sure who the closest comparable would be. 

[GHT120]

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Give him the maximum amount of front load in contract for a 4-5 yr deal to keep the cap hit as low as possible, as long as there is no trade protection involved.

Cap Hit is the AAV (Average Annual Value) of the contract ... in other words, the total value of the contract divided by its' term ... the only advantage to front-loading a deal is that in a trade in the later years a "floor team" can take on a cap hit higher than the actual dollars the owner has to pay out.

[Butterface]

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I think almost everyone here would like to resign Evans. The question is, at what cost?  At 3 million a year I sign him, at  4 million I don't. 

I’m uncomfortable over 3.5, but I’m still signing at 4… no no trade clause.

 

I just got home to sit down and listen to Biron’s comments about trades. I agreed with him. Bang on.

[DON]

dlbalr seems to have an OK crystal ball for expected contracts.

Like most i dont have a clue what; comparable players fit, expected cap rise, player cap%, etc for an Evans-type to make an educated guess.

Like most, just very curious if will still be a Hab on March 8th... or maybe will be a Leaf.

[BCHabnut]

6 hours ago, Butterface said:

Basically instead of me sitting and making up the plan as it plays out in front of me, I have already made the plan and will tweak if things change. Because many decisions are based on cap management, I look far in advance to be able to see issues. I fit players I want to keep and make early plans for trading out players I see as not fitting. If they surprise like Laine is so far, I incorporate them in. If I see they don’t fit, I prepare to flush them. I’m preparing to flush Evans and maybe Struble. I am not as optimistic about Evans as I am Dach.

 

I guess the rigidity in my plan that you see is my adherence to the salary cap. 

It may be your plan, but gms can't have rigid 5 year plans like you lay out. Its not possible. 

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

Cap Hit is the AAV (Average Annual Value) of the contract ... in other words, the total value of the contract divided by its' term ... the only advantage to front-loading a deal is that in a trade in the later years a "floor team" can take on a cap hit higher than the actual dollars the owner has to pay out.

I know how the cap hit is calculated. Advantage of frontloading is two fold. One, Evans may be willing to sign for a lower overall cap hot, if he is getting more of it in the early years. Second, as you said, teams with a lower budget, floor teams, or teams in a rebuild that don't think it's worth spending as much without playoff revenue, but wanting a veteran presence may be willing to trade for him.

[Butterface]

48 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

It may be your plan, but gms can't have rigid 5 year plans like you lay out. Its not possible. 

I honestly don’t understand what you are calling rigid. Please explain.

 

I am open minded about changing the plan quickly if it makes sense.

 

If you are saying I’ve made up my mind on Struble and Newhook as being the rigid part, you are closer there. I think they aren’t going to make it. Is that too rigid ?

 

Armia is too much of a mystery. I recognize he is playing well, but I am not worried about losing him … is that rigid ? No, I think that’s a preference on how I’d build a team.

 

I don’t have an open mind for Dvorak. Gone.

 

Savard has ended his useful phase. Gone.

 

Evans, I would sign .. tops is about 4.25M .. but if he isn’t signed by TDL 2025, I’d trade him. No appetite to sign him more than 3-4 years at that price. If he comes at 3.5, I’d do 5 years… 

 

Matheson still is needed. I think TDL 2026 or maybe slightly earlier if the team looks ready to take the training wheels off the young defence. 

 

Which part is the rigid part ?