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

[BCHabnut]

52 minutes ago, Butterface said:

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 ? 

No. More in general I suppose. I've said before, I'm sure there are long term plans, and multiple options discussed, but the game is too dynamic. An untimely injury. A player finding their game. A callup outperforming his peers etc, a 15 game heater, a 15 game slump. Just so many things that can drastically change your plans, that I doubt the plan 5 years from now is as thorough as you think.

[Dalhabs]

The team has won 9 of their last 11 games, beating loads of top teams. Fighting for a wildcard spot, maybe even a top 3 in atlantic can ba possible and butterface wants to sell/tank?

It would be career suicide in habland by the gm to do that. What if we trade the ufas and start playing really bad with a bunch of 20-yearolds being booed of the ice?

[GHT120]

11 hours ago, Butterface said:

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.

I think the "issue" (to use a severe term) is that most feel teams do not have a single plan that they amend ... rather that they have multiple plans that account as best possible for the expected variables  ... my own guess is that teams have a couple/few plans for their projected core and then they have individual player projections (production and contract) that they can move in and out as things evolve.

[Butterface]

9 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

The team has won 9 of their last 11 games, beating loads of top teams. Fighting for a wildcard spot, maybe even a top 3 in atlantic can ba possible and butterface wants to sell/tank?

It would be career suicide in habland by the gm to do that. What if we trade the ufas and start playing really bad with a bunch of 20-yearolds being booed of the ice?

 

We’re playing just fine without Savard in the lineup. So why wouldn’t we trade him and capitalize on that?

 

Sure, losing Dvorak and Armia would hurt the PK.  Trading Dvorak for a 5th or 6th round pick is pointless—unless we retain salary and get something more valuable in return. Armia, on the other hand, could fetch something worthwhile if dealt.

 

Evans? I’d like to re-sign him, but if a deal can’t be struck for reasonable term and dollars, why pass up a prime opportunity to turn him into a solid trade asset?

 

Why, in hell, would you hold onto valuable trade assets for the sake of a one-year, low-probability Cup run? These players are professionals—they know the business. They understand their time will come.

 

Management has been crystal clear from the start: they want to build a perennial Cup contender, a team that consistently makes the playoffs year after year. If they’re serious about that, they can’t afford to squander assets in a short-term gamble.

 

I’ve said it from day one, and if you’ve been following, you’ll see that I’ve never wavered. I’ve adapted as circumstances shifted, but my view of this team’s timeline has been consistent. And right now, we’re a year ahead of where I thought we’d be, thanks to this unexpected hot streak.

 

But tell me, why in hell would we abandon the long-term plan for a fleeting 12-15 game surge? The plan may need adjustment due to our draft position, but that’s a consequence of success—and that’s the rub. We’re now out of range for a high pick in 2025, a draft that would have positioned us better for the future. This is the final year or two before our core talent (Hage, Demidov, Beck, Reinbacher, Mailloux, Kapanen) arrives, and we see the bulk of our expiring UFAs (Gallagher, Armia, Dvorak, Savard, Matheson, Anderson) come off the books the next few years. After this, we will be rising in the standings for years to come.

 

I’m not calling for a tank. I’m saying it’s a tragedy that our current play is robbing us of the chance to draft the kind of talent that could be the game-changer for this franchise. I’d like to regress from this hot streak back to the norm so we can make draft selections at the appropriate spots. We are a bit ahead of ourselves.

 

We’re in a sweet spot right now—an optimal mix of young talent and outgoing vets that’s fueling this unexpected success. But make no mistake: it’s unsustainable. This year or next it will be gone as our youth movement takes full hold. When that happens the true foundation of our future Cup contenders will have started.

 

It will be a shame we didn’t get a Misa, Martone, Hagens, McQueen, Frondell or Desnoyers out of the draft.

 

So, if you want to ride out these next couple of years of success without cashing in expiring UFAs and risk derailing the long-term, higher-chance future of this team, that’s your call.

 

But me? I’m sticking to the plan. The plan with the higher likelihood of success.

 

As far as being rigid… I’m pragmatic. I definitely have a plan that has roots, but I am able to change the plan if it is disrupted.

 

Telling me I’m too rigid about possible injuries ? That makes no sense. 
 

I have one spreadsheet, but I copy it and lay it out with new variables like I did to show Evans at 4M and how it could change the landscape. I have multiple spreadsheets for multiple realistic changes.

 

You can attempt to tell me that this type of spreadsheet isn’t being done at head office, but I think it is and with better accuracy than mine and just as far out.
 

Career suicide by playing 3 more rookies for 1/4 of the season ? It’s only 3 years into the rebuild and most of the talent drafted for the rebuild is not even on the team. I doubt I’m getting fired.

 

You guys are very shortsighted on the ultimate goal. You are Bergevin 2.0

 

You are bringing knives to a gunfight.

 

We need a bigger foundation of talent. Lots of which will be used as trade assets for future TDLs.

 

Bitch at me all you want.

 

But please post your work with a different type of spreadsheet (or same type) and show me your plan.

 

None of you have. (Alfred a bit)
 

I welcome it.

 

Even if you don’t use a spreadsheet I welcome it.

 

But don’t come without an eye to the salary cap. Because without a salary cap projection it’s all bullshit.

Not many people post strong black and white views because they fear reprisals. I don’t care what people think. 

 

I’ve seen too many GMs fall to pressure from a ‘win now’ mindset.. They then go and weaken the future of the team to appease a fanbase with an “anything can happen” in the playoffs attitude.

 

That is not the way to go for longterm success. Ask Bergevin.

 

 

 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

1 hour ago, Butterface said:

 

Why, in hell, would you hold onto valuable trade assets for the sake of a one-year, low-probability Cup run? These players are professionals—they know the business. They understand their time will come.

 

Management has been crystal clear from the start: they want to build a perennial Cup contender, a team that consistently makes the playoffs year after year. If they’re serious about that, they can’t afford to squander assets in a short-term gamble.

 

 

 

Fair points, tough to disagree with. Hughes may have some very tough decisions to make at the trade deadline.  If Evans isn't resigned by then he is likely on the block. And they have played well without Savard. The young group is coming together.

 

Stick to the plan!!

[illWill]

Why stop at trading pending UFAs this year? Better trade Laine and Matheson for futures too, why waste those assets? I didn't realize the spread sheet had so much insight on when this team will start to be competitive.

 

I mean, we are only the second youngest team in the league, have a Calder frontrunner, have the best and most electrifying prospect outside of the NHL, a 5th overall defenseman who everyone forgets about, our young top line locked in long term on excellent deals, and one of the best stock pile of draft picks for this coming June. 

 

We definitely don't need a home grown, elite penalty killer like Jake Evans on the team, we need to wait until we are ready to compete, and THEN we will simply go out and find a Jake Evans, probably better and for cheaper too. Team chemistry also doesn't matter, the spread sheet will confirm this. The guys won't care if they bust their ass all season long trying to battle for a playoff spot only to watch their friends get traded for futures, they'll understand the "plan". 

[Butterface]

Here is an article that gives bullet points about what a GM is thinking when signing players like Jake Evans...

 

https://thesickpodcast.com/habs-negotiation-tactics-kent-hughes-playbook/

 

It is missing the part where Hughes must also think about Evans’ worth in a trade. Could we get a good return ? Could a pick he gets us be turned into a player ? Not by waiting for the draft and that player’s development, but an NHL ready player from another teams’ roster in exchange for the pick Evans gets us and some sweeteners we can add.

 

He has to weigh that into his signing. 

 

 

[Commandant]

4 minutes ago, illWill said:

Why stop at trading pending UFAs this year? Better trade Laine and Matheson for futures too, why waste those assets? I didn't realize the spread sheet had so much insight on when this team will start to be competitive.

 

I mean, we are only the second youngest team in the league, have a Calder frontrunner, have the best and most electrifying prospect outside of the NHL, a 5th overall defenseman who everyone forgets about, our young top line locked in long term on excellent deals, and one of the best stock pile of draft picks for this coming June. 

 

We definitely don't need a home grown, elite penalty killer like Jake Evans on the team, we need to wait until we are ready to compete, and THEN we will simply go out and find a Jake Evans, probably better and for cheaper too. Team chemistry also doesn't matter, the spread sheet will confirm this. The guys won't care if they bust their ass all season long trying to battle for a playoff spot only to watch their friends get traded for futures, they'll understand the "plan". 

 

100%

 

This is why the spreadsheet is too rigid and lacks the ability to pivot, take advantage of opportunities and look at the team in the way a real GM does.

 

We've been discussing how to build the team for.YEARS on this site without the rigidity of the spreadsheet.  

 

If Butterface wants to use it, fine.

 

But dont demand everyone else lay out a similar spreadsheet or something different.  Not every user here agrees with being so rigid about a plan and not wanting to trade Armia for.a 4th rounder or Evans for a 2nd rounder doesnt mean we are Bergevin 2.0 and suggesting that we are is quite frankly insulting.

 

 

[Butterface]

1 minute ago, illWill said:

Why stop at trading pending UFAs this year? Better trade Laine and Matheson for futures too, why waste those assets? I didn't realize the spread sheet had so much insight on when this team will start to be competitive.

 

I mean, we are only the second youngest team in the league, have a Calder frontrunner, have the best and most electrifying prospect outside of the NHL, a 5th overall defenseman who everyone forgets about, our young top line locked in long term on excellent deals, and one of the best stock pile of draft picks for this coming June. 

 

We definitely don't need a home grown, elite penalty killer like Jake Evans on the team, we need to wait until we are ready to compete, and THEN we will simply go out and find a Jake Evans, probably better and for cheaper too. Team chemistry also doesn't matter, the spread sheet will confirm this. The guys won't care if they bust their ass all season long trying to battle for a playoff spot only to watch their friends get traded for futures, they'll understand the "plan". 

Read all my previous thoughts on subject… I tell you when I think the window opens. 
 

You’re over emphasizing the moving out of UFAs… Matheson is important for stability and a major reason why Savard can be moved. Laine (when healthy) has proven he needs to be weaved into the core (hence the 10M dollar contract) if you look at spreadsheet. 

 

It would be great to keep Evans with all the exiting PK players. Evans at a price he can be traded for in two to three years if we need to (maybe we won’t need to). But if he does not fit into the salary cap for his position, we need to make alternative plans.

 

The plan wasn’t for this one year. This is not “hockey friends” it’s “hockey business” … they are losing one friend who decided not to sign a contract for money. He chose his friends over business.

 

They are NHL players. They understand why it’s happening. 

 

 

[Butterface]

I really don’t know what is rigid about plotting players salaries and contract lengths on a spreadsheet.

 

Much of the spreadsheet shows true contracts… the rest are expected reasonable contracts.

 

They are our players.

 

How are facts too rigid ?

[Butterface]

What you guys are complaining about is the trading of expiring UFAs for assets to help a team in its third year of a rebuild. A team that still needs to have its eye firmly on the future. 

[Commandant]

1 minute ago, Butterface said:

I really don’t know what is rigid about plotting players salaries and contract lengths on a spreadsheet.

 

Much of the spreadsheet shows true contracts… the rest are expected reasonable contracts.

 

They are our players.

 

How are facts too rigid ?

 

Its been explained multiple times that having 1 plan for building the team is too rigid and not how NHL teams work.  GMs don't plot out 23 man rosters 6-8 years in advance.  They have their core pieces and fill in the rest as they go.  They leave themselves options for someone not living up to expectations for whatever reason, or for a player they didn't' expect being in free agency or out there for trade, or for a late round pick exceeding expectations or for any of a number of things that will happen in the next 6-8 years that can't be anticipated today.  Filling out who their fourth line centre will be in 6 years is not practical and not how the league works. 

 

 

[Butterface]

13 minutes ago, Commandant said:

But dont demand everyone else lay out a similar spreadsheet or something different. 

Don’t demand somebody come up with their own ideas ?

 

 

[Commandant]

Just now, Butterface said:

Don’t demand somebody come up with their own ideas ?

 

 

 

We have our own ideas.  Don't demand that they have to be presented the way you like them. 

[Butterface]

Just now, Commandant said:

Its been explained multiple times that having 1 plan for building the team is too rigid and not how NHL teams work.  GMs don't plot out 23 man rosters 6-8 years in advance.  They have their core pieces and fill in the rest as they go.  They leave themselves options for someone not living up to expectations for whatever reason, or for a player they didn't' expect being in free agency or out there for trade, or for a late round pick exceeding expectations or for any of a number of things that will happen in the next 6-8 years that can't be anticipated today.  Filling out who their fourth line centre will be in 6 years is not practical and not how the league works. 

Great. Show me how all that looks to you.

[Butterface]

Just now, Commandant said:

 

We have our own ideas.  Don't demand that they have to be presented the way you like them. 

Great. Show me how that looks.

[Commandant]

you say others who don't have the spreadsheet are Bergevin 2.0. 

 

But I disagree entirely.  I think focusing on the spreadsheet and not the human aspects of a team is to steal a Bergevin phrase, you are playing PlayStation. 

 

The development of young players in a winning environment is something your spreadsheet ignores. 

 

The chemistry between players is something your spreadsheet ignores. 

 

The confidence that can be inspired by a GM believing in his club and giving them a chance to make the playoffs rather than strip it down and the emotions that brings, vs giving up on a team playing well by trading a bunch of vets off despite being close to the playoffs, is something that your spreadsheet ignores. 

 

The human part of managing matters too, and its just not part of such a rigid system. 

[xXx..CK..xXx]

51 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Fair points, tough to disagree with. Hughes may have some very tough decisions to make at the trade deadline.  If Evans isn't resigned by then he is likely on the block. And they have played well without Savard. The young group is coming together.

 

Stick to the plan!!

I can easily disagree with that assessment by writing a novel…

 

1) No one is saying to hold on to assets in order to accomplish one deep cup run. It’s a very narrow minded way of looking at things. 
 

2) These players believe in their team, and rightly so. There’s no “I understand my time will come and it’s not now”. That’s a completely random and false statement.

 

3) Management has been crystal clear that they want to improve and be in the mix of things this year. They want the team to gain the experience of playing important games and learning to fight for wins that matter.

 

Quote from an article with Hughes:

 

”

If that means holding on to all their pending unrestricted free agents instead of trading them for draft picks come March, that appears to be something they’re willing to do.

 

“I think right now we have two firsts, two seconds, three thirds, two fourths and our regular complement of five, six and seven (for the 2025 Draft). We have two seconds, two fourths next year,” Hughes said.

 

It only reinforced the notion that he and Gorton think the need for their young players to continue developing in a winning environment trumps the need to collect more draft capital.

 

- - -

 

“The Plan” is nothing more than some fans wanting more draft picks because mysteriously this one extra player will turn the franchise into a perennial contender despite the reality that there are tonnes of other avenues to achieve the goal of becoming a perennial contender. Trades, free agent signings, learning how to win, etc. In fact there are a myriad of top 3 picks that the Habs have either traded away or received in the recent past so it’s not like they are never available. Add on to the fact that we already have a lot of promising prospects in the pool, and it’s simply not our priority. Players like McDavid… well boy it would have been wonderful to draft him roughly 10 years ago. How many cups has Edmonton won since they drafted him? How long after they drafted him did they potentially become perennial contenders? Last year? Nice, so we’ll wait another 8-9 years until it’s the habs turn due to their stellar positioning in drafts.

 

In addition, this is to say that there have been very few people who have been begging Hughes to become a buyer at the trade deadline. It would be nice to add some solid players, but there is no one asking the Habs brass to mortgage our future in order to compete for one potential and unlikely cup run. 
 

What people are stating is the obvious: What the Habs do at the deadline will depend entirely on the combination of two things.

 

First: Where are the Habs in the standings?

 

Second: What is the return for the player?

 

It’s not individual to the Habs. Most teams in the playoff hunt do not enter the trade deadline hoping to crush the aspirations of their team.

 

On the other hand, those who are looking only towards the future are completely overlooking that part and either want to trade certain players no matter what, or even worse are hoping that the Habs lose because they are the ones who absolutely know everything, and everyone else is wrong. Their reality should be everyone else’s reality. “The Habs are here, but really they shouuuuld be there”. That’s where the rigidness comes in. It’s never, well would you look at that. The team is actually better than we thought and now we should employ this different strategy or thought process.
 

It’s always been that way and it’s nothing new.  During our cup run, the Habs were discredited (I know some people still will), during some of our deep runs, people

were calling for tanking and selling the very same seasons. There’s no way that anyone can convince me that there won’t be people saying the same thing next year as well. It’s not like everyone is on the same page and next year was supposed to be the year where everything just changes for the better.

[Butterface]

Every one of the players on my spreadsheet are on the team now. So the chemistry is the same. The chemistry is only soured by the change in the salary cap.

 

I know you aren’t saying keep the chemistry and trade Demidov because he is not part of the chemistry now.

 

You think trading out Savard will ruin the chemistry ? 

[Commandant]

Multiple areas I've disagreed have already been set out. 

 

1) Take the best player available in the draft.  If you make good picks you might end up with too many players at one position and need someone in another.  That's not an issue for a good GM who will make trades to fill in the places he needs. 

 

2) Leave flexibility and cap space open to take advantage of a player like Laine wearing out his welcome in Columbus, or a team like Nashville wanting to trade a guy they signed 5 months earlier like Carrier to a contract extension.  This doesn't fit with the rigidity of the spreadsheet. 

 

3) Identify the areas that are part of the core and what you have for them and then find solutions. 

 

Core pieces right now.... Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, Laine, Hutson, Guhle, Matheson

 

Pieces needed and possible solutions. 

#2 C - might be Dach, no medium term option if Dach fails.... might be Hage long term. 

#3 C - currently is Evans, could be re-signed.... no medium term option if Evans leaves.... long term Beck and Kapanen could grow to it. 

Top 6 winger - Should be Demidov soon.

 

Top 4 RHD - Carrier is filing in now, could use a second option, maybe Reinbacher, Mailloux as long term pieces. 

 

Goalie, no elite option, but Montembault serviceable.  Long term Dobes and Fowler are there. 

 

PKers - need some options if Armia, Dvorak, Evans, leave. 

 

So when you go into the summer you are looking to decide.... is Dach the guy at #2, if not you need to fill medium term options at 2nd line C.  Is Evans back, if not you need a stop gap at #3 C.  What wingers can kill penalties, Can Heineman do this?  Roy?  or do you need another vet winger if Armia leaves?

 

This is the type of plan I think a GM is thinking about.  

 

1

 

 

[Butterface]

Hughes said he’d use the picks for futures or for trading for players.

 

The picks we get aren’t necessarily for making those picks. 
 

They will be packaged to bring in NHL ready players or deferring the picks (ie trading a 2025 for a 2027) when we could better receive it.

[Butterface]

3 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Multiple areas I've disagreed have already been set out. 

 

1) Take the best player available in the draft.  If you make good picks you might end up with too many players at one position and need someone in another.  That's not an issue for a good GM who will make trades to fill in the places he needs. 

 

2) Leave flexibility and cap space open to take advantage of a player like Laine wearing out his welcome in Columbus, or a team like Nashville wanting to trade a guy they signed 5 months earlier like Carrier to a contract extension.  This doesn't fit with the rigidity of the spreadsheet. 

 

3) Identify the areas that are part of the core and what you have for them and then find solutions. 

 

Core pieces right now.... Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, Laine, Hutson, Guhle, Matheson

 

Pieces needed and possible solutions. 

#2 C - might be Dach, no medium term option if Dach fails.... might be Hage long term. 

#3 C - currently is Evans, could be re-signed.... no medium term option if Evans leaves.... long term Beck and Kapanen could grow to it. 

Top 6 winger - Should be Demidov soon.

 

Top 4 RHD - Carrier is filing in now, could use a second option, maybe Reinbacher, Mailloux as long term pieces. 

 

Goalie, no elite option, but Montembault serviceable.  Long term Dobes and Fowler are there. 

 

PKers - need some options if Armia, Dvorak, Evans, leave. 

 

So when you go into the summer you are looking to decide.... is Dach the guy at #2, if not you need to fill medium term options at 2nd line C.  Is Evans back, if not you need a stop gap at #3 C.  What wingers can kill penalties, Can Heineman do this?  Roy?  or do you need another vet winger if Armia leaves?

 

This is the type of plan I think a GM is thinking about.  

 

1

 

 

This is all easily seen in the spreadsheet.

 

 

[Commandant]

[tomh009]

The way I see it, this year's TDL is about managing the pending UFA contracts. While Bergevin's "get in the playoffs and anything can happen" almost came true in 2021, I don't expect that Hughes will be pushing for that this season. What he wants is meaning games in the spring. So, don't strip the team but don't let meaningful assets walk away, either.

 

I do believe that Savard is gone, assuming that Hughes gets something in return; Struble has already filled in well enough for him, and we have the Mailloux option as well. And changing one D-man does not destroy the chemistry or cohesion of a defence corps: it didn't when we got Carrier for Barron, either.

 

One the other side, Matheson is unlikely to be moved.Losing him would have a much bigger impact, and he is on contract for next year still. The 2026 TDL may be a different matter, but let's wait and see on that.

 

So, the key to the forwards has got to be Evans, and what he would accept from the Habs. If we can sign him for 3x$4M or 4x$3M I expect that Hughes will not hesitate to pull out his pen and get the deal done. But if he wants a big long-term deal, something approaching 6x$4M--and he might, given that he has never had a contract at even $2M AAV before--that surely isn't going to work for the team. Where exactly that line is, only Hughes and Gorton know.

 

So, instead of a spreadsheet, here is my flowchart 😊 for this year's TDL.

 

[Butterface]

In the spreadsheet… core players are all signed in longterm.

 

Dach is not, he’s in a show me contract.

Evans has a question mark. Meaning we are waiting on weather he fits, but we’d like him.

 

Carrier is on there and what a 2 year extension could look like.

 

Montembeault is on and what an extension for Dobeš looks like.

If Dobeš keeps this up another year or two, Dobeš could be kept and Montembeault moved out.

 

etc etc

 

its all in there.