Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

2016-17 If I Were GM...


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, RicochetII said:

I would prefer to protect Beaulieu, unless we have a plan in place to acquire another LD soon. If Benn prefers the right, he isn't going to displace Petry or Weber, so 3rd pairing guy. Beaulieu will at least be able to leapfrog Emelin, so 2nd pairing. Beaulieu is also younger and at least has more trade value right now. Let's keep in mind that we really haven't seen a lot from Benn, as good as he has looked (Weaver?). Luckily, that also means Vegas hasn't seen much from him either.

For Weber, I've said it before. If it wasn't for the optics of having lost Subban for nothing, I would be tempted to expose him.
I think Vegas takes him though. Gives a new fanbase someone to latch onto, as he would likely be the star player and first face of the franchise. The money will eventually become an issue, but there are always ways around that, and silly GMs waiting to make a bad move.

Las Vegas GM George McPhee has been around for 25 years. I'm sure he's seen a lot of just about everyone in the NHL. I'm just thinking if it would be wiser to keep Benn than Weber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habs1952 said:

Las Vegas GM George McPhee has been around for 25 years. I'm sure he's seen a lot of just about everyone in the NHL. I'm just thinking if it would be wiser to keep Benn than Weber.

Sorry, I meant with Montreal. From what I can gather, he wasn't as dependable or consistent in Dallas as he has shown here so far, but I don't know first hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as i like Benn, i wouldn't be overly upset to lose him. I would prefer to protect the younger Nathan to be honest. Would be great if we could hold on to both and lose Emelin. It's just as probable that we lose a forward and retain everybody on D. As mentioned already,,,, anybody that we lose won't be a huge blow to the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also protect the younger, left-handed guy (Beaulieu) over Benn... I'm not sure the Habs are certain of what they will do yet.

As for Weber, the guy is still a #1 D man in the league. No sense in losing him for nothing. Vegas would definitely take him, because they won't get a player of that caliber elsewhere. They're not going to be hard up for cap space, so it's likely not a big deal for them. We should be looking at trading Weber, but for a good return, not dumping him for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2017 at 4:47 PM, BigTed3 said:

We should be looking at trading Weber, but for a good return, not dumping him for nothing.

You have to wonder if MB traded for Weber with the plan to move him after a couple of years.  If he feels like we should 'win now" you bring him in for 2 - 3 and then move him for a couple of young players, assuming he still has good value.

As for the expansion draft, a few thoughts:

- like most , no matter who we lose, its not going to be the end of the world. This is not like 1967 when 6 teams were added.  We will lose one player, we'll be fine.

- teams can only protect 3 defensmen.  (obviously some will protect 9 total rather than 7/3) there are going to be some good, quality dmen available.  Its not out of the realm of possibility we dont lose Benn or Beaulieu... although it wouldnt surprise me at all if MB trades Beau "just in case."

- We have some forwards that may actually be more appealing than our back-end, depending upon who we expose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2017 at 6:42 PM, maas_art said:

You have to wonder if MB traded for Weber with the plan to move him after a couple of years.  If he feels like we should 'win now" you bring him in for 2 - 3 and then move him for a couple of young players, assuming he still has good value.

As for the expansion draft, a few thoughts:

- like most , no matter who we lose, its not going to be the end of the world. This is not like 1967 when 6 teams were added.  We will lose one player, we'll be fine.

- teams can only protect 3 defensmen.  (obviously some will protect 9 total rather than 7/3) there are going to be some good, quality dmen available.  Its not out of the realm of possibility we dont lose Benn or Beaulieu... although it wouldnt surprise me at all if MB trades Beau "just in case."

- We have some forwards that may actually be more appealing than our back-end, depending upon who we expose. 

Is it possible that a GM could make a deal with Vegas and say, we will give you a pick,,, 2,3,or 4th, say,,, if Vegas doesn't pick player (s?),  X from our team? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kinot-2 said:

Is it possible that a GM could make a deal with Vegas and say, we will give you a pick,,, 2,3,or 4th, say,,, if Vegas doesn't pick player (s?),  X from our team? 

They must pick one player from each team but I don't see why you couldn't offer a pick to do what you ask and direct them elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, H_T_L said:

They must pick one player from each team but I don't see why you couldn't offer a pick to do what you ask and direct them elsewhere.

Once Vegas picks your player they can just flip him back for a pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habs1952 said:

Once Vegas picks your player they can just flip him back for a pick.

This is the only applicable thing in regards to that, which I'm aware of: 

Any players picked by Vegas cannot be traded back to their former team before January 1, 2018, and any player picked in the expansion draft cannot have their contracts bought out until after the completion of the 2017–18 season. These rules were imposed to prevent existing teams coming to deals with the expansion team to take on sub-optimal contracts for their mutual benefit.

5 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

Is it possible that a GM could make a deal with Vegas and say, we will give you a pick,,, 2,3,or 4th, say,,, if Vegas doesn't pick player (s?),  X from our team? 

There is no rule I'm aware of that explicitly prevents it, which makes it tacitly legal, but ...

These rules were imposed to prevent existing teams coming to deals with the expansion team to take on sub-optimal contracts for their mutual benefit.

If there is one rule intended to prevent this from happening, perhaps there are other rules either in the works, as yet unknown, or under consideration.
They may add that you can't "bribe" Vegas to select a certain player, but they may allow you to "bribe" them to not select a certain player, for example.
With the goal being to ensure Vegas has more freedom of selection and aren't being taken advantage of. (Pure speculation on my part)

This is an often overlooked and unconsidered rule that is interesting: 

Vegas will be granted a 48-hour window prior to the draft to sign any pending free agent (RFA or UFA, one per team) that was left unprotected. If a team loses a player to Vegas during this signing window they will not have a player selected from their roster during this draft.

If I understand that correctly ...
Radulov, for example, is going to be UFA. Vegas is going to get 48 hours to convince him to sign there. If he does, we're off the hook for protecting our players.
If we want to stop Vegas from negotiating with him, we have to protect him, even though he is going to be UFA?

That could be not only a saving grace for some teams, but it could potentially make the free agent market even sparser this year. What isn't clear, is whether a UFA agreeing to terms with Vegas would count toward one of their required "players signed through 17/18" picks, or one of their less restrictive selections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
3 minutes ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

IF you're Marc Bergevin, do you maybe take a run at Jack Eichel?  Maybe:

To BUF: Alex Galchenyuk, Nathan Beaulieu, 1st in 2017

To MTL: Jack Eichel

 

What do you think it would take to get him? 

Habs don't have enough or anything to  get Eichel out of Buffalo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

IF you're Marc Bergevin, do you maybe take a run at Jack Eichel?  Maybe:

To BUF: Alex Galchenyuk, Nathan Beaulieu, 1st in 2017

To MTL: Jack Eichel

 

What do you think it would take to get him? 

If the cap doesn't increase next season, and everything I've read says it won't, MB is stuck with spending 17 M on two players. Price should command 10, and pac man can easily ask for 7. One thing I've noticed in tonights game is Pacman has been basically non existent. Playoffs are what matters most, so If I'm the gm, I package Pacman with Beaulieu, to someone for something good. Ideally Dylan Strome. This would save one save spot for the upcoming draft and shore up money. I would like to see Scherbak called up and give time to develop under CJ. We know he has the Offensive skills and maybe could replace what Pac brings. Scherbak is a talent that is rotting in the ahl under that loser coach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

IF you're Marc Bergevin, do you maybe take a run at Jack Eichel?  Maybe:

To BUF: Alex Galchenyuk, Nathan Beaulieu, 1st in 2017

To MTL: Jack Eichel

 

What do you think it would take to get him? 

Who do we have that will be a star in Buffalo for the next 10 years? That's what it will take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2017 at 6:04 PM, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

IF you're Marc Bergevin, do you maybe take a run at Jack Eichel?  Maybe:

To BUF: Alex Galchenyuk, Nathan Beaulieu, 1st in 2017

To MTL: Jack Eichel

 

What do you think it would take to get him? 

My guess is that you would have to do something like:

Galchenyuk + Sergachev + 1st  to even get them not to hang up the phone.  Even then, that might not be enough, although Eichel apparently said today he wouldnt resign if they keep the same coach.   

If they did bite on the above trade you'd be giving up (potentially) 1st line centre and a (potentially) 1st pairing dman for a 1st line centre who may be among the top 4 or 5 in the game very soon.     Its a fair trade if everyone pans out but there's lots of risk all around. Buffalo obviously has the most risk but you basically cant trade a guy like Eichel without risk - because you're never getting back a sure thing of equal value.  Montreal's risk would be if Galchenyuk does turn into an elite scorer AND Sergachev becomes Markov 2.0.   

its awesome to dream of Eichel in a habs uni but i just dont see it happening.  Even if we had the pieces - and could afford to risk moving them - I cant imagine Buffalo moves him within the conference, let alone the division.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

My guess is that you would have to do something like:

Galchenyuk + Sergachev + 1st  to even get them not to hang up the phone.  Even then, that might not be enough, although Eichel apparently said today he wouldnt resign if they keep the same coach.   

If they did bite on the above trade you'd be giving up (potentially) 1st line centre and a (potentially) 1st pairing dman for a 1st line centre who may be among the top 4 or 5 in the game very soon.     Its a fair trade if everyone pans out but there's lots of risk all around. Buffalo obviously has the most risk but you basically cant trade a guy like Eichel without risk - because you're never getting back a sure thing of equal value.  Montreal's risk would be if Galchenyuk does turn into an elite scorer AND Sergachev becomes Markov 2.0.   

its awesome to dream of Eichel in a habs uni but i just dont see it happening.  Even if we had the pieces - and could afford to risk moving them - I cant imagine Buffalo moves him within the conference, let alone the division.

 


 

His agent apparently denied those reports,,, TSN 690, but stuff like that doesn't come out of thin air. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2017 at 10:08 PM, Regis22 said:

Habs don't have enough or anything to  get Eichel out of Buffalo

Habs most likely are retooling (yet again), in the off season.  If I am MB my moves could potentially be:

To MTL: Nick Leddy

To NYI: Alex Galchenyuk

Reasoning:  On MB's rumored shopping list all last season was a top pairing D.  Leddy had 46 points with the Isles.  A top pairing of Leddy and Weber would be as solid as they come.  It would take a player like Galchenyuk to pry Leddy out of Brooklyn.  But the Isles could benefit from that scoring support Galchenyuk would provide.  Which is also the biggest downside to making the trade.  Galchenyuk could blossom as a secondary centre behind Tavares.  But Leddy would be mutually beneficial to us.

To MTL: Jeff Carter

To LA: Nathan Beaulieu, WSH 2nd 2018; CHI 2nd 2018

 

Reasoning: The other piece on the shopping list from this past season was an offensive, #1 centre with size.  Jeff Carter fits that blueprint.  Though he is 32, he still produces at a 60+ point clip.  The most appealing stat on Carter; 9 GWG tied for 2nd in the league.  LA needs cap space, so moving Carter could appeal to them.  His $5.273 mil cap hit could free up the space needed to resign Tiffoli and Pearson.  The downside: being on the hook for Carter til 2021.  Lines would be:

Pacioretty, Carter, Gallagher

Byron, Danault, Shaw

Lehkonen, Plekanec, Mitchell

Terry, McCarron, Scherbak

Leddy, Weber

Emelin/Davidson, Petry

Markov, Sergachev

Price

Montoya

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

Habs most likely are retooling (yet again), in the off season.  If I am MB my moves could potentially be:

To MTL: Nick Leddy

To NYI: Alex Galchenyuk

Reasoning:  On MB's rumored shopping list all last season was a top pairing D.  Leddy had 46 points with the Isles.  A top pairing of Leddy and Weber would be as solid as they come.  It would take a player like Galchenyuk to pry Leddy out of Brooklyn.  But the Isles could benefit from that scoring support Galchenyuk would provide.  Which is also the biggest downside to making the trade.  Galchenyuk could blossom as a secondary centre behind Tavares.  But Leddy would be mutually beneficial to us.

Leddy's significantly better than Weber, though. Better relative adjusted 5-on-5 Corsi and significantly better 5-on-5 primary point production while playing with much worse teammates and around the same quality of competition and more raw 5-on-5 minutes. Trading for Leddy would let us shelter Weber on the second pair where he'd likely be more effective 5-on-5, but we'd naturally have to replace Galchenyuk's production.

15 minutes ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

To MTL: Jeff Carter

To LA: Nathan Beaulieu, WSH 2nd 2018; CHI 2nd 2018

 

Reasoning: The other piece on the shopping list from this past season was an offensive, #1 centre with size.  Jeff Carter fits that blueprint.  Though he is 32, he still produces at a 60+ point clip.  The most appealing stat on Carter; 9 GWG tied for 2nd in the league.  LA needs cap space, so moving Carter could appeal to them.  His $5.273 mil cap hit could free up the space needed to resign Tiffoli and Pearson.  The downside: being on the hook for Carter til 2021.  Lines would be:

Since we have to win next season or bust, I'm not necessarily opposed to trading Galchenyuk (as frustrating as it'll be). "Size" and GWGs are meaningless, though. There are far more appealing parts of Carter's game. He's slightly more productive in primary points, and more productive in 5-on-5 shot attempts by a notable margin. But I'm not sure he'll be able to replicate it here, and he's not that young anymore. I'd prefer to target a slightly younger centre who we could realistically keep around for a focused rebuild if we can manage to keep Price and Pacioretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, habs_93 said:

Leddy's significantly better than Weber, though. Better relative adjusted 5-on-5 Corsi and significantly better 5-on-5 primary point production while playing with much worse teammates and around the same quality of competition and more raw 5-on-5 minutes. Trading for Leddy would let us shelter Weber on the second pair where he'd likely be more effective 5-on-5, but we'd naturally have to replace Galchenyuk's production.

Since we have to win next season or bust, I'm not necessarily opposed to trading Galchenyuk (as frustrating as it'll be). "Size" and GWGs are meaningless, though. There are far more appealing parts of Carter's game. He's slightly more productive in primary points, and more productive in 5-on-5 shot attempts by a notable margin. But I'm not sure he'll be able to replicate it here, and he's not that young anymore. I'd prefer to target a slightly younger centre who we could realistically keep around for a focused rebuild if we can manage to keep Price and Pacioretty.

I feel this team is much closer to a rebuild than it is a cup.  I've felt that way for the past 2 seasons.  I honestly think if they were to fire Bergevin, they'd look at the 2 hall of fame goalies (Roy or Brodeur). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

I feel this team is much closer to a rebuild than it is a cup.  I've felt that way for the past 2 seasons.

I don't disagree, but we have to try while Price is still under contract. It's now or never. I'm all in for big, bold moves that help us now if they're reasonable. There's no excuse for not going for it right now, IMO.

5 minutes ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

I honestly think if they were to fire Bergevin, they'd look at the 2 hall of fame goalies (Roy or Brodeur). 

I'd just as soon not have another rookie GM, but I don't know we have a choice. Definite 100% hard pass on Roy, though, no matter what. Colorado was a clown show under him, and I have no desire to see what he'd do with 4-5+ years here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, habs_93 said:

I don't disagree, but we have to try while Price is still under contract. It's now or never. I'm all in for big, bold moves that help us now if they're reasonable. There's no excuse for not going for it right now, IMO.

I'd just as soon not have another rookie GM, but I don't know we have a choice. Definite 100% hard pass on Roy, though, no matter what. Colorado was a clown show under him, and I have no desire to see what he'd do with 4-5+ years here.

Unfortunately H93, I also think a decision may have to be made very soon whether this is a total rebuild or a retooling. I think we are all in for THIS season which was really thrust upon us by Bergevin. Let's see what happens tonight. If we are eliminated by the Rangers, I believe major decisions will need to be made including what we do with Carey. Allowing the team to slowly rot from the inside as is what happened with the Leafs (many times over) should not be palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also look strongly at trading Weber. I don't know that our team is strong enough to win in his window, so may as well maximize return and trade him before his career drops off. The only problem is the cap recapture penalty we'd face for trading him now, but I still think he'll have value on the trade market now, not so sure in a couple of years. I'd rather pay a couple million in cap recapture down the line than see him lose all value sitting here on mid-level teams that can't win. Deal him for assets that can be here for 6-8 years. Deal him for a 1C.

IF the plan is to trade Galchenyuk, I actually think we'll have better returns if we trade Weber for a 1C (to a team sorely lacking D men) and then deal Galchenyuk for a top pairing defenceman (to a team needing offence). Especially with the expansion draft coming up, we might find teams looking to change their ratios of forwards to D men, but MB would have to act fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

If I were GM, my goals for off-season would be:

- trade Emelin and Plekanec

- Find a 2nd line center

- Find a #2-3 left-handed D man

At this point, the current roster has so many holes I don't even know where to start.

I agree on your trade priorities and would probably add Beaulieu to the list if it means we're getting that #2 LHD to play big minutes with Weber. While I do feel that Emelin has some value, trading Plekanec will be virtually impossible given his salary I'm afraid. The best we can hope for is getting rid of his salary through the expansion draft or some sort of minor deal with a cash-strapped team. Even if we're trading both Emelin and Beaulieu, we still need to make a decision with respect to Benn and Markov. That would also give Sergachev another year in the minors, which is probably the right thing to do.

Nesterov, King, Flynn, Ott, and Martinsen can walk obviously, they don't add much value and can easily be replaced internally or through the UFA market. I really liked Ott in the playoffs but his skillset is not something we should prioritize right now.

If there are any reasonable offers for Shaw and/or Byron, I probably wouldn't hesitate and pull the trigger. Byron had a great year but my gut tells me that he can't be a consistent  20-goal scorer in this league. Using him on the third line and as a PKer is perfectly fine though plus he's on a cheap contract, so moving him isn't a priority at all. We absolutely must NOT sign him to some silly long-term deal though. Just saying, it's happened before with other players.

So, that leaves us with the major question mark that is Galchenyuk's status on the team right now. At some point, we need to decide once and for all if he's going to be a center or a winger. Going back and forth on this isn't going to help anyone, his confidence level is probably at an all-time low after the injury and switching positions repeatedly under two different coaches. I understand the concerns with his defensive game but he's hands down the most gifted scoring center we have on the team and therefore needs to be surrounded with scorers, not pluggers and grinders with size. If management decides during the offseason that he's not going to be used as a scoring center, we'll probably have no choice but to trade him for one. The most likely candidate would obviously be Matt Duchene, yet a 1-for-1 swap would be like the Subban trade all over again, i.e. we'd get older and not necessarily better long-term.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...