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

2017-18 The Rumors Thread


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

People are talking about SJ as a favorite to be a landing spot for John Tavares. Well let's look at their cap situation for next year... they currently have 11 forwards, 7 D men, and 2 goalies on their NHL roster who are re-signed for next year. Now some of those younger role players won't make the team next year, but as it stands, they have 60.5M in allocated money and 14.5M in remaining cap space, although the cap will likely go up to at least 78M. So take off a couple of those cheaper players and bump up the cap, and let's say they have about 19M to play with to sign say 5 forwards. So who are those players? We probably know at least two of them...

- Joe Thornton said he wants to return to SJ and that it's really his only option. He also said he's willing to take a bit of a paycut if it means the team can sign another UFA (whoever that might be). So let's say he takes 6M instead of 8M.

- The Sharks have also publicly announced today that they want Evander Kane back, even though that means forfeiting a 1st round pick instead of a 2nd rounder. Kane made 5.25M and he's going to want a raise. So let's say he lands at around 6.5M per season on a 4-5 year deal.

Many people thought the Sharks would have to choose between Kane and Tavares and wouldn't have enough money for both. Well if SJ signs Kane and re-ups Thornton, even at a discount, that leaves them with maybe 6.5M in cap space and the need to sign 3 more forwards. They likely let Joel Ward, Jannik Hansen, and Eric Fehr walk if they can find better alternatives, but they also still need to re-sign Thomas Hertl. He made 3M last year and he's probably going to get at least 4.5M, if not 5M+ on his next contract, something in the same range as Galchenyuk... so let's say 4.5M to be kind. Well now we've got 2M in cap space and the need to fill two roster spots. That'll be pretty tough to fit JT under the cap.

So what could change? Well maybe the cap goes up to 82M instead, albeit that's not likely. That would give them 6M in space. Still not enough. Otherwise, they'd need to ditch salary. In any case, if they do re-sign Kane, and the new right now is that they want to, then that might just be enough to take SJ out of the Tavares sweepstakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

People are talking about SJ as a favorite to be a landing spot for John Tavares. Well let's look at their cap situation for next year... they currently have 11 forwards, 7 D men, and 2 goalies on their NHL roster who are re-signed for next year. Now some of those younger role players won't make the team next year, but as it stands, they have 60.5M in allocated money and 14.5M in remaining cap space, although the cap will likely go up to at least 78M. So take off a couple of those cheaper players and bump up the cap, and let's say they have about 19M to play with to sign say 5 forwards. So who are those players? We probably know at least two of them...

- Joe Thornton said he wants to return to SJ and that it's really his only option. He also said he's willing to take a bit of a paycut if it means the team can sign another UFA (whoever that might be). So let's say he takes 6M instead of 8M.

- The Sharks have also publicly announced today that they want Evander Kane back, even though that means forfeiting a 1st round pick instead of a 2nd rounder. Kane made 5.25M and he's going to want a raise. So let's say he lands at around 6.5M per season on a 4-5 year deal.

Many people thought the Sharks would have to choose between Kane and Tavares and wouldn't have enough money for both. Well if SJ signs Kane and re-ups Thornton, even at a discount, that leaves them with maybe 6.5M in cap space and the need to sign 3 more forwards. They likely let Joel Ward, Jannik Hansen, and Eric Fehr walk if they can find better alternatives, but they also still need to re-sign Thomas Hertl. He made 3M last year and he's probably going to get at least 4.5M, if not 5M+ on his next contract, something in the same range as Galchenyuk... so let's say 4.5M to be kind. Well now we've got 2M in cap space and the need to fill two roster spots. That'll be pretty tough to fit JT under the cap.

So what could change? Well maybe the cap goes up to 82M instead, albeit that's not likely. That would give them 6M in space. Still not enough. Otherwise, they'd need to ditch salary. In any case, if they do re-sign Kane, and the new right now is that they want to, then that might just be enough to take SJ out of the Tavares sweepstakes.

The Sharks could sign Tavares and let Thornton walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

If you're San Jose, I think you just let Joe Thornton wait while you determine if signing Tavares is possible. That's a huge chunk of money for Tavares right there. If you land him, you let Thornton walk, retire, or sign at a HUGE discount.

Agreed. I dont see that one JT should be a stumbling block for the other.   Thornton has made a lifetime of $$ over his career. If he decides he wants to play another year & the sharks sign Tavares, I am pretty sure Thornton would come back at a big discount.

That said, Im still hoping we have the inside track on JT.  (Tavares, not Thornton!! :4224:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

Agreed. I dont see that one JT should be a stumbling block for the other.   Thornton has made a lifetime of $$ over his career. If he decides he wants to play another year & the sharks sign Tavares, I am pretty sure Thornton would come back at a big discount.

That said, Im still hoping we have the inside track on JT.  (Tavares, not Thornton!! :4224:)

July 1st, 2018:

Marc Bergevin would like to announce the signing of Joe Thornton. Financial terms of the deal not disclosed. Insiders have it as a 2-year deal for $7.5 million per season.

July 2nd, 2018:

I give up on the Montreal Canadiens for 2018-2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

If you're San Jose, I think you just let Joe Thornton wait while you determine if signing Tavares is possible. That's a huge chunk of money for Tavares right there. If you land him, you let Thornton walk, retire, or sign at a HUGE discount.

Here's the thing though... Thornton has been extremely loyal to San Jose. He re-signed there even when his good friend Marleau bolted. He's already announced that he really only wants to play for San Jose and that he's willing to take a slight paycut if it means they can go after someone else. He's not going to go and test the market if he doesn't have to and he's eligible to be re-signed now. So SJ's in a bit of a pickle and I don't think it's as simple as telling Thornton to wait. If you're Thornton and you get told, "we don't want to sign you yet, we're going to wait until July 1st to see if we can sign someone better and then if we can't get anyone else we'll circle back to you" well that probably isn't going to make you feel that great and it's certainly not an incentive to provide ongoing loyalty or a hometown discount. Look at what happened to Bergevin with Markov and Radulov. He tried to play hardball and look at other options and he let things go too late into summer and then he ended up with neither. Everyone thought Markov would accept whatever offer the Habs gave him and just want to come back. He didn't.

So sure, SJ can wait it out with Thornton, but it's a gamble to do that. You might tick him off and send him packing and we all know the market for Tavares is going to be competitive, so the risk is that you end up with no one and a bunch of cap space you can't find anything to spend on, a la Bergevin. So tell me how successful you think Bergevin's play at waiting on his UFA's was last year and then ask yourself if that's worth the risk to SJ to take stab at Tavares. Do you sign the guys you know want to play there (Thornton and Kane) or do you hold out and gamble losing them in order to try to upgrade? Not as easy as that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, maas_art said:

Like almost as crazy as a Norris trophy winning dman in his prime 1 for 1 for an already declining Weber?  Its happened and will continue to do so.  The deal may seem ridiculous but I would bet dollars for donuts Chiarelli and other GMs would give a crap load more than Klefbom 1 for 1 for Weber.   

 Weber has value, despite the fact you dislike him. Alzner and Schlemko have negative value at this point. 

Hey in all fairness at that time there were a lot of people in the hockey world that thought the trade would be pretty even for the next 3 to 5 years. With Weber coming of playing on team Canada in the world cup. All the negativety surrounding Subban. I thought it was a ridiculous trade when it happened but there were just as many people that thought it was even  trade at the time. You ask those same people now and  most would have changed there mind.

And because of what has taken place the last two season a lot has changed.  "The hockey world has had the chance to see how ridiculous the trade was. He is  coming of a brutal season, broken foot, turning 33 years old before the season starts and still carrying a ton of baggage cap wise".

Yes he can be traded, but to think your getting  a 19yr 4th overall pick only turning 20 at the start of this season, a 24 yr old 1st round pick defenseman who may even have better value than weber right now and the top ten pick in this years draft well that is just as crazy as thinking we can trade benn for nylander. 

I would do Klefboom for Weber straight up and think we won the trade. Not because I think Klefboom is better right now but at 24 years old there is a really good chance he will be in a couple of years and will still be only  26 years old with a cap hit of 4.1 million. While weber is  35 with a cap hit at almost 8 million. 

I don't dislike Weber at all, I like him,  I think we are stuck with him though because we are never getting back the value we gave away  to get him,  everyone in the Hockey world has been able to see what a  huge a mistake it was and that will influence any trade for Weber. And when you factor in Age, foot operation and cap hit .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, caperns61 said:

Hey in all fairness at that time there were a lot of people in the hockey world that thought the trade would be pretty even for the next 3 to 5 years. With Weber coming of playing on team Canada in the world cup. All the negativety surrounding Subban. I thought it was a ridiculous trade when it happened but there were just as many people that thought it was even  trade at the time. You ask those same people now and  most would have changed there mind.

And because of what has taken place the last two season a lot has changed.  "The hockey world has had the chance to see how ridiculous the trade was. He is  coming of a brutal season, broken foot, turning 33 years old before the season starts and still carrying a ton of baggage cap wise".

Yes he can be traded, but to think your getting  a 19yr 4th overall pick only turning 20 at the start of this season, a 24 yr old 1st round pick defenseman who may even have better value than weber right now and the top ten pick in this years draft well that is just as crazy as thinking we can trade benn for nylander. 

I would do Klefboom for Weber straight up and think we won the trade. Not because I think Klefboom is better right now but at 24 years old there is a really good chance he will be in a couple of years and will still be only  26 years old with a cap hit of 4.1 million. While weber is  35 with a cap hit at almost 8 million. 

I don't dislike Weber at all, I like him,  I think we are stuck with him though because we are never getting back the value we gave away  to get him,  everyone in the Hockey world has been able to see what a  huge a mistake it was and that will influence any trade for Weber. And when you factor in Age, foot operation and cap hit .

 

 

more Weber hating and blindly loving PK

Interestingly I was against the trade when it first happened but have come around to understanding that it was the best deal available. 

He was hurt, give him a chance to come back at least! 

Nothing wrong with Weber's contract. Its a GOOD contract. It's only really bad for Nashville if he ever retires early. So already it shows how poorly informed you are about the situation. 

When you give 10 million dollars to charity and your teammates don't nominate you for the King Clancy Trophy, I think that's enough of a statement to fans and management that somebody is simply not welcome. Because I don't know what happens in a dressing room, I have to take their word for it. And don't talk about hockey not being a popularity contest, I work with people I love and people I hate and everything in between... my productivity is severely capped when I'm forced to work with some I really hate. Yes, we are adults and need to do our job, but its one thing not to like someone, it's another thing to deal with someone who is constantly causing an issue or undermining you etc... eventually it's too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habsisme said:

more Weber hating and blindly loving PK

Interestingly I was against the trade when it first happened but have come around to understanding that it was the best deal available. 

He was hurt, give him a chance to come back at least! 

Nothing wrong with Weber's contract. Its a GOOD contract. It's only really bad for Nashville if he ever retires early. So already it shows how poorly informed you are about the situation. 

When you give 10 million dollars to charity and your teammates don't nominate you for the King Clancy Trophy, I think that's enough of a statement to fans and management that somebody is simply not welcome. Because I don't know what happens in a dressing room, I have to take their word for it. And don't talk about hockey not being a popularity contest, I work with people I love and people I hate and everything in between... my productivity is severely capped when I'm forced to work with some I really hate. Yes, we are adults and need to do our job, but its one thing not to like someone, it's another thing to deal with someone who is constantly causing an issue or undermining you etc... eventually it's too much. 

I somewhat agree with you on the possibility or likelihood or whatever you want to call it that there were issues in the room between Subban and who knows who else. If you believe the rumors, Plekanec seems to be a prime possibility as one in the anti-Subban camp, and Gallagher appears to be another. But on the other hand, Subban clearly had a good number of teammates whom he got along really well with. I think it's just the case of not everyone ends up being friends with everyone, but it does sound like it was a small number of players in general and the anti-Subban minority benefited from the fact that the coach and GM didn't like Subban. I think that had more to do with it than players not liking him. I truly believe Therrien and Bergevin did their best to badmouth Subban and put him down whenever they could, and that allowed others to feel more confident and open in bad-mouthing him too. Call it the Trump effect: when the boss lets you think it's okay to put certain people down, other people find the "courage" or audacity if you will to do it too.

In any case, regardless of whether Subban's personality caused a riff in the team, it's also clear the team's performance was better with him than without him. So even if you think his personality hindered the team in some way, his on-ice ability made up for it even more. That's really the end of the story.

As for the cap recapture, there's no doubt Nashville is on the hook for a big problem if Weber retires early. If he retires one year early, that's the biggest problem for the Preds, because they'll be stuck with a 24M cap hit over one year. If he retires at any other time, it's 24M divided over however many years he was to have left on his contract. So it could be 6M a year for 4 years or 4M a year for 6 years or so on.

But in Montreal's case, the Habs aren't off the hook yet either. The cap recapture is applied any time a team benefits from having paid more salary than actual cap hit at the time a player retires early (i.e. the team benefited from a lower cap hit via a front-loaded contract that the player never saw through because the last few years were a farce). As it stands thus far, the Habs have paid 24M in salary but only experienced a total cap hit of 15.7M over the past two years. So we're on the hook for a cap recapture of 8.3M ourselves as of right now. Shea has 8 years left on his deal, so if he retires tomorrow, we'd have a cap penalty of about a million per year for those 8 years. Worst case scenario is if we trade him tomorrow and then he retires with one year left on his deal, we'd have a cap penalty of 8.3M in 2025-26. It's really the one potential downside of shipping him out right now.

The good news is that Shea's actual salary drops starting in 2018-19. So if we retain him for all of next season, the salary/cap hit difference drops by 1.8M and it would do the same for each of the 3 seasons after that. To get rid of our entire cap recapture hit though, we'd either have to keep him for 5 more years or else he'd have to play in the NHL all the way through 2025-26 (i.e. through the age of 40). Given that his last 3 seasons are paying out a salary of 1M each, there's a reasonable chance he decides not to play for that much and calls it a day after the 2022-23 season. If we trade him this off-season and he retires in 2023, we'd be hit with a 2.8M cap hit for the following 3 years. It's by no means as big of a problem as what Nashville will face, but it's not nothing either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, habsisme said:

more Weber hating and blindly loving PK

Interestingly I was against the trade when it first happened but have come around to understanding that it was the best deal available. 

He was hurt, give him a chance to come back at least! 

Nothing wrong with Weber's contract. Its a GOOD contract. It's only really bad for Nashville if he ever retires early. So already it shows how poorly informed you are about the situation. 

When you give 10 million dollars to charity and your teammates don't nominate you for the King Clancy Trophy, I think that's enough of a statement to fans and management that somebody is simply not welcome. Because I don't know what happens in a dressing room, I have to take their word for it. And don't talk about hockey not being a popularity contest, I work with people I love and people I hate and everything in between... my productivity is severely capped when I'm forced to work with some I really hate. Yes, we are adults and need to do our job, but its one thing not to like someone, it's another thing to deal with someone who is constantly causing an issue or undermining you etc... eventually it's too much. 

I don't know if it was the best deal at the time! I am not privy to trades by the Habs. Are you?

Hardly Weber hating, but yes certainly a love for PK and statiscally speaking PK has already proven to be a better player by leaps and bounds and there does not appear to be any problem between PK and current teammates.

If a boss continually calls out one individual openly in front of all the other workers, than that individual will become an easy target. When in fact the problem was not the employee but the boss.

Hate is a pretty harsh word....

So your telling me you hate some of your fellow employees? And your productivity drops when you have to work with them is this correct?

Question: does the productivity of the individuals you are speaking about go up or even stay the same, because that could be an indication its not the fault of the other employee you choose to hate, but rather your ability to do your own job. It could be an indication that your not able to cope with a stressful situation or that you are not a team player. I don't know :)

I personally don't think an 8 million dollar cap hit for a 33 year old defenceman coming off a broken foot who was not that great a skater to begin is a good contract. No its a really bad contract when we are still shelling out 8 million for a guy who is 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 years old who is already slow of foot at 33...

 

 or 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of us know for sure what happened in the room, but like I've posted before, players like Beaulieu, Weise, Markov, Price, Gill, DSP, Galchenyuk, etc. clearly got along with Subban while others like Plekanec and Gallagher and maybe Pacioretty didn't. So who cares if 25% of the room doesn't like Subban and 75% did? I don't think that mattered. I think you can poll most NHL locker rooms and find a handful of players who don't like given guys. That's just life, and people deal with it. Again, the biggest difference here was Bergevin and Therrien not only making it okay but encouraging and actively participating in putting Subban down. Who was right? I don't know for sure, but this is what we do know:

- Subban has always acted in a respectful manner in public. He's been polite and gracious with the media. He's been willing to be a public face for his team, and he shows up to face the music whether he plays well or plays poorly. He celebrates his own achievements, but he also celebrates those of his teammates with as much aplomb. He gave not only money but more importantly his time to the Children's Hospital and for those people who think he only donated to charity to further his own image, you're ignoring the fact that he would show up there on weekends and do his thing with the kids and leave without anyone knowing he was there. Since going to Nashville, he seems to be appreciated by his teammates and his coach and GM, and he's been voted a King Clancy nominee by them and then a finalist by the NHL. He's done his part to help children in need and try to repair the relationship between the police and under-privileged communities.

- Therrien bad-mouthed Subban every chance he got on Anti-Chambre. He bashed his attitude and his personality. He told viewers he was going to make him a better man before he even coached him or knew him to any reasonable degree. He bashed him in the media and singled him out repeatedly. We've also seen him on Anti-Chambre singling out Subban and yelling at him. A number of former players have talked about how Therrien was a terrible communicator and had his own agenda.

- Bergevin played hardball with Subban twice in contract negotiations because he didn't want to pay him, and had to be over-stepped by the owner to resolve the problem. Bergevin refused to support Subban in public for the Olympics. He has repeatedly lied to the public about injuries and contract negotiations and about not trying to trade Subban, something that once again, the owner Geoff Molson has admitted Bergevin did, even though that admission doesn't really make Molson himself look that good.

So no, we don't know what happened behind closed doors. But who am I more likely to side with and believe? The guy who publicly has been nothing but a good teammate and outstanding member of the community? The guy who said there's more to the story but won't talk about it because he won't throw men who disrespected him under the bus? Or do you believe the coach who appeared to show hate towards Subban before he even met him and the GM who's made it a habit of lying to us? I know where I stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Here's the thing though... Thornton has been extremely loyal to San Jose. He re-signed there even when his good friend Marleau bolted. He's already announced that he really only wants to play for San Jose and that he's willing to take a slight paycut if it means they can go after someone else. He's not going to go and test the market if he doesn't have to and he's eligible to be re-signed now. So SJ's in a bit of a pickle and I don't think it's as simple as telling Thornton to wait. If you're Thornton and you get told, "we don't want to sign you yet, we're going to wait until July 1st to see if we can sign someone better and then if we can't get anyone else we'll circle back to you" well that probably isn't going to make you feel that great and it's certainly not an incentive to provide ongoing loyalty or a hometown discount. Look at what happened to Bergevin with Markov and Radulov. He tried to play hardball and look at other options and he let things go too late into summer and then he ended up with neither. Everyone thought Markov would accept whatever offer the Habs gave him and just want to come back. He didn't.

So sure, SJ can wait it out with Thornton, but it's a gamble to do that. You might tick him off and send him packing and we all know the market for Tavares is going to be competitive, so the risk is that you end up with no one and a bunch of cap space you can't find anything to spend on, a la Bergevin. So tell me how successful you think Bergevin's play at waiting on his UFA's was last year and then ask yourself if that's worth the risk to SJ to take stab at Tavares. Do you sign the guys you know want to play there (Thornton and Kane) or do you hold out and gamble losing them in order to try to upgrade? Not as easy as that...

I don't think it's a gamble for SJ to wait him out. Afterall, he's gonna be 39 before next season, who would want him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

I somewhat agree with you on the possibility or likelihood or whatever you want to call it that there were issues in the room between Subban and who knows who else. If you believe the rumors, Plekanec seems to be a prime possibility as one in the anti-Subban camp, and Gallagher appears to be another. But on the other hand, Subban clearly had a good number of teammates whom he got along really well with. I think it's just the case of not everyone ends up being friends with everyone, but it does sound like it was a small number of players in general and the anti-Subban minority benefited from the fact that the coach and GM didn't like Subban. I think that had more to do with it than players not liking him. I truly believe Therrien and Bergevin did their best to badmouth Subban and put him down whenever they could, and that allowed others to feel more confident and open in bad-mouthing him too. Call it the Trump effect: when the boss lets you think it's okay to put certain people down, other people find the "courage" or audacity if you will to do it too.

In any case, regardless of whether Subban's personality caused a riff in the team, it's also clear the team's performance was better with him than without him. So even if you think his personality hindered the team in some way, his on-ice ability made up for it even more. That's really the end of the story.

As for the cap recapture, there's no doubt Nashville is on the hook for a big problem if Weber retires early. If he retires one year early, that's the biggest problem for the Preds, because they'll be stuck with a 24M cap hit over one year. If he retires at any other time, it's 24M divided over however many years he was to have left on his contract. So it could be 6M a year for 4 years or 4M a year for 6 years or so on.

But in Montreal's case, the Habs aren't off the hook yet either. The cap recapture is applied any time a team benefits from having paid more salary than actual cap hit at the time a player retires early (i.e. the team benefited from a lower cap hit via a front-loaded contract that the player never saw through because the last few years were a farce). As it stands thus far, the Habs have paid 24M in salary but only experienced a total cap hit of 15.7M over the past two years. So we're on the hook for a cap recapture of 8.3M ourselves as of right now. Shea has 8 years left on his deal, so if he retires tomorrow, we'd have a cap penalty of about a million per year for those 8 years. Worst case scenario is if we trade him tomorrow and then he retires with one year left on his deal, we'd have a cap penalty of 8.3M in 2025-26. It's really the one potential downside of shipping him out right now.

The good news is that Shea's actual salary drops starting in 2018-19. So if we retain him for all of next season, the salary/cap hit difference drops by 1.8M and it would do the same for each of the 3 seasons after that. To get rid of our entire cap recapture hit though, we'd either have to keep him for 5 more years or else he'd have to play in the NHL all the way through 2025-26 (i.e. through the age of 40). Given that his last 3 seasons are paying out a salary of 1M each, there's a reasonable chance he decides not to play for that much and calls it a day after the 2022-23 season. If we trade him this off-season and he retires in 2023, we'd be hit with a 2.8M cap hit for the following 3 years. It's by no means as big of a problem as what Nashville will face, but it's not nothing either.

Agreed. We have an aging, injured team and we simply can't compete in today's NHL unless we start from scratch with a total rebuild. Said rebuild should happen without Molson & MB who are dragging us down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact #1: In the 2013-2014 season Montreal lost in the 3rd round of the playoffs and Subban was on our team (so was Rene Bourque)
Fact #2: After the 2013-2014 season Montreal signed PK to an 8 year deal
Fact #3: In the 2014-2015 season Montreal lost in the second round of the playoffs and Subban was on our team
Fact #4: In the 2015-2016 season Montreal missed the playoffs and Subban was on our team
Fact #5: After the 2015-2016 season, on June 29 2016 Subban was traded for Weber
Fact #6: In the 2016-2017 season Montreal lost in the first round of the playoffs and Subban was not on our team
Fact #7: In the 2017-2018 season Montreal missed the playoffs and Subban was not on our team

There is no causality between the team's performance and Subban. There is not even correlation.  Subban is not the reason Montreal wins or loses. Montreal had these results (good and bad) with Subban, not beCAUSE of Subban.

Fact #8: Subban is a more talented player than Weber was since 2014, is, and ever will be going forward
Fact #9: Subban is a worse teammate, in the Montreal 2015-2016 season, than Weber was in the Montreal 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons

Our talent took a down-tick when PK left, and our team chemistry took an up-tick when PK left.  

But don't conclude that the talent down-tick from this trade is the cause of our current mess, or that the chemistry up-tick would be enough to avoid the current mess either.  

In the 2015-2016 season, with PK, we were both a talent-poor and a chemistry-poor team.  In the 2016-2017 season we added some talent in Radulov and improved our chemistry without PK, and improved by losing in the first round.  The 2017-2018 season was doomed when we lost the talents of Radulov and Markov and we missed the playoffs.  But even with PK, Radulov and Markov, all working harmoniously with everyone...we're still not winning the Cup.

We need to take several steps backwards before we can begin to take one step forward on the path to the Cup.  We need to trade our aging assets for picks and prospects at 100% FMV or better.

"Patches" is a great nickname for our franchise's captain, because its how we've been operating since the 90s.  The 'ol SS Habby, never really winning, never really losing, just patching the holes and staying afloat. 

PK in Nashville 2016-2017 went to the Cup finals, and in 2017-2018 made it to the 2nd round.  Both of these performances were with PK not beCAUSE of PK. 

The real question is if MB is putting us on the path to the Cup or the path to playoffs-and-hey-you-never-know.  The problem is its not really a question, because we know the answer.

 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're actually closer to the Cup today than we have been in a very long time.

At least today we can say enough with the playoffs-and-we'll-see path and go down the harder Cup path.  You know, the one where we have things like centers and prospects and stuff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Here are my issues, WIndoe:

1. There is no way to measure team chemistry. You called us a poor-chemistry team with Subban, but how do you determine that? Because the coach didn't like him and tried to make his life miserable? That doesn't mean there's poor chemistry, that means we had an asshole for a coach. There is no proof that we had better team chemistry with Weber than with Subban, other than the narrative that Weber is a good old Canadian boy who plays the game the "right" way and Subban is a flashy modern-day player who doesn't keep things simple.

2. Any time a team wins, people say they had great chemistry and when a team loses people say they had bad chemistry. So perhaps the opinion of this is more based on the end results rather than a cause of the results. After this season, Bergevin claimed we had problems with our team make-up and a number of players with bad attitudes. That doesn't sound that great to me. Now is that because the players all didn't get along or is that because players and coaches just get frustrated when they lose games? Now I get the debacle in Philadelphia a few years ago, where one player slept with another player's wife... sure, that's going to cause a rift. I get it when a guy like Sergei Kostitsyn or Mike Ribeiro skips practices or misses team flights or shows up to work hungover and doesn't perform. But PK did none of that, to our knowledge, and he was our best performer on the ice on most nights.

3. You're correct that we have no idea really how Montreal and Nashville would have done without Subban, but the fact remains that the Habs with Subban got to an ECF and haven't made it that far with Weber. And the Preds with Subban made a Cup final, which Weber never came close to. So no, you can't measure all the variables that go into that, but what we can say is that Subban's presence on the team did nothing to hinder the team from performing as well or better than it did with Weber. So the whole idea of Subban ruining team chemistry and bad team chemistry leading to team failure is garbage. Subban has won a Norris and been nominated for another this year. He's one of the best players in the NHL and has the basic and advanced stats to back that up. His teams have experienced decent amounts of team success. So there is zero proof that he is a hindrance and more evidence to suggest he helps teams win. Ditto for Phil Kessel, who was blamed for Toronto's failures for several years and then became one of the key contributors to the Pens winning back to back Cups. Skilled players help you win games. They can't do it by themselves, and you certainly need more than one Subban or one Kessel to propel your team to a Cup victory, but Subban is better than Weber and the idea that Weber's reputation as a good guy balances out Subban's talent is hogwash.

4. This team also misses Radulov, who played with skill and effort almost every night. That was never replaced. He was a character guy and a leader, but more than that, he could play hockey. You know who else had character and were good teammates and tried hard every night: Brandon Prust and Travis Moen and Torrey Mitchell and Hal Gill and Francis Bouillon... but we don't miss those guys all that much because they're not as skilled and just didn't contribute as much to team success. They're role players, they filled the role they were asked to, but they have less impact on team success than a Radulov, Subban, or Weber. The things that make Weber valuable are his shot, his ability to score on the PP, his experience/smarts on the ice, and his body positioning to protect the puck. If what made him special was character and being a good teammates, then players like Gill and Prust would be just as valuable. They're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, caperns61 said:

Hey in all fairness at that time there were a lot of people in the hockey world that thought the trade would be pretty even for the next 3 to 5 years. With Weber coming of playing on team Canada in the world cup. All the negativety surrounding Subban. I thought it was a ridiculous trade when it happened but there were just as many people that thought it was even  trade at the time. You ask those same people now and  most would have changed there mind.

And because of what has taken place the last two season a lot has changed.  "The hockey world has had the chance to see how ridiculous the trade was. He is  coming of a brutal season, broken foot, turning 33 years old before the season starts and still carrying a ton of baggage cap wise".

Yes he can be traded, but to think your getting  a 19yr 4th overall pick only turning 20 at the start of this season, a 24 yr old 1st round pick defenseman who may even have better value than weber right now and the top ten pick in this years draft well that is just as crazy as thinking we can trade benn for nylander. 

I would do Klefboom for Weber straight up and think we won the trade. Not because I think Klefboom is better right now but at 24 years old there is a really good chance he will be in a couple of years and will still be only  26 years old with a cap hit of 4.1 million. While weber is  35 with a cap hit at almost 8 million. 

I don't dislike Weber at all, I like him,  I think we are stuck with him though because we are never getting back the value we gave away  to get him,  everyone in the Hockey world has been able to see what a  huge a mistake it was and that will influence any trade for Weber. And when you factor in Age, foot operation and cap hit .

 

 

This is the reason I think MTL is in rebuild mode.  It's also why I think they need to start moving out contracts like Weber and Price.  Vancouver just saw 14-mil in cap space open up, why not offer Carey Price for Jakub Markstrom, a 1st in 2019 and a 1st in 2020?  They are much more stacked than we are.  They need a top tender to put themselves over the top.  As for Weber, I've already floated a Weber for Jake Gardiner trade.  Say what you want about Gardiner, but he's a 50 point producing left handed shot that we don't currently have.  All of our left handed shots put the puck in our net instead of our opponents.  If he doesn't work out we can ship him out as a rental at the 2019 deadline.  As for centre, I would see if Pittsburgh would accept: Jamie Benn, Dave Schlemko and Paul Byron for Derrick Brassard and Carl Hagelin.  As for PAtches I've already said at least once, I would dangle both he and Shaw is front of the Islanders for their 2 1st rounders and possibly their 2 nd rounder.  But the 2 1st rounders (Maybe Ho-Sang and DalCole) are good for me.  I really want Veleno.  I also want to see if I can Lure Patrik Hersley out of the KHL throw some money at him since we have the cap space.  My line up after the trades is potentially:

Galchenyuk, Brassard, Gallagher

Drouin, Veleno, Zadina

Hudon, Danault, Scherbak

Hagelin, McCarron, Lehkonen

 

Gardiner, Petry

Mete, Hersley

Rielly, Juulsen

Lindgren

Markstrom

 

Spares: Deslauriers, Froese, Alzner

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe we should look at trading Price, Pacioretty, and Weber... but I think the targets should be teams that are close to winning now and who may be willing to overpay for a chance that the player puts them over the top or at the very least gets them into the playoffs or a round or two further than they otherwise might have gone. I don't think Vancouver fits into that category for now, and I doubt they'd want to give up two 1st rounders. Likewise, I don't think we'd give up our 2019 and 2020 1st rounders to acquire Matt Duchene or Nik Backstrom or so on; I just don't think we're close enough to gamble our future like that. I think teams like Calgary, St. Louis, Edmonton, Florida, Carolina, Dallas, Philadelphia, Columbus, Vegas, and San Jose are more of those playoff-caliber teams who are on the uptick and might feel they can benefit from a boost to push them farther. Those are the teams I'd try to target first. Already-competitive teams like Nashville, Pittsburgh, Washington (especially if they lose Carlson), and Toronto might also be interested in some of our veterans. I also wonder if Buffalo might be willing to grab someone because they want to accelerate their recovery, having Eichel and likely Dahlin already. Best fits?

 

- Pacioretty to Calgary, Edmonton, Florida, LA, or Carolina.

- Weber to Edmonton, Toronto, Philly, or Vegas.

- Price to Carolina, Edmonton, Buffalo, Philly, St. Louis, or NYI.

 

Right now, I really love the idea of dealing with Carolina or Edmonton. Carolina's owner is desperate to make a splash and seemingly willing to trade prospects for an established veteran. And Dudley may be of the Bergevin mindset, having been one of his top advisors, and overvalue the likes of Weber or Price. Likewise, Edmonton is desperate to try and win now with McDavid and company in their prime, and their GM has a history of making very bad trades. Those are two organizations with lots of young blue chip prospects who can probably be exploited in a trade. It sounds like it'll be harder to convince Florida or St. Louis to part with a key prospect, for example.

With the exception of the fact that Price has to approve any trade, dealing him to Carolina just makes a lot of sense for us. It gives the Canes an instant star and a splash to help them get to the playoffs. But something like the 2nd overall and Jake Bean for Price could make sense for both teams. If they want us to take Darling off their hands, then you ask for another piece.

Pacioretty to Carolina also makes some sense, as does Pacioretty to Calgary. But the team most likely to be able to re-sign him long-term, if you believe the rumors, is Florida. If you wait til July 1st and allow Florida to negotiate an extension with him, it might increase his value. If they can do that, they might be more willing to part with Borgstrom. My ask for Pacioretty would be Borgstrom and their 1st round pick in 2019, which again, is more than fair when you consider what players like Kane, Nash, and so on have fetched before.

And as for Weber, Edmonton would be my go-to target first. Toronto makes a lot of sense, especially with Babcock's history of drooling over Weber, but again, Edmonton has made it clear their priority this off-season is an offensive RH D man and they may go to great lengths to solve that problem. Again, I would try to push them for a package including their 10th overall pick and Klefbom (whom they want to get rid of) or Nurse, along with another piece like Puljujarvi, and I'd be willing to give up one of our 2nd rounders or another player like Shaw or Byron or Scherbak to make that happen.

That would mean that dealing Weber, Price, and Pacioretty, we could theoretically end up with a haul including Jake Bean, Svechnikov, Borgstrom, Puljujarvi, Klefbom, a 10th overall pick (to turn into a player like Dobson, Veleno, Hayton, or so on), and a 2019 1st rounder. Again, this is obviously all hypothetical, but while some people are going to suggest the trade returns are not realistic, the fact is that these returns are consistent with what other teams have paid for like players in the past. All three of our guys have strong trade value if you believe NHL insiders, and pulling in a haul like that for three guys heading towards the end of their primes before they get to that point could help to reset us in a big way and make us competitive maybe not in the next 2 years but certainly in 3 years, 5 years, and 7 years from now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I also believe we should look at trading Price, Pacioretty, and Weber... but I think the targets should be teams that are close to winning now and who may be willing to overpay for a chance that the player puts them over the top or at the very least gets them into the playoffs or a round or two further than they otherwise might have gone. I don't think Vancouver fits into that category for now, and I doubt they'd want to give up two 1st rounders. Likewise, I don't think we'd give up our 2019 and 2020 1st rounders to acquire Matt Duchene or Nik Backstrom or so on; I just don't think we're close enough to gamble our future like that. I think teams like Calgary, St. Louis, Edmonton, Florida, Carolina, Dallas, Philadelphia, Columbus, Vegas, and San Jose are more of those playoff-caliber teams who are on the uptick and might feel they can benefit from a boost to push them farther. Those are the teams I'd try to target first. Already-competitive teams like Nashville, Pittsburgh, Washington (especially if they lose Carlson), and Toronto might also be interested in some of our veterans. I also wonder if Buffalo might be willing to grab someone because they want to accelerate their recovery, having Eichel and likely Dahlin already. Best fits?

 

- Pacioretty to Calgary, Edmonton, Florida, LA, or Carolina.

- Weber to Edmonton, Toronto, Philly, or Vegas.

- Price to Carolina, Edmonton, Buffalo, Philly, St. Louis, or NYI.

 

Right now, I really love the idea of dealing with Carolina or Edmonton. Carolina's owner is desperate to make a splash and seemingly willing to trade prospects for an established veteran. And Dudley may be of the Bergevin mindset, having been one of his top advisors, and overvalue the likes of Weber or Price. Likewise, Edmonton is desperate to try and win now with McDavid and company in their prime, and their GM has a history of making very bad trades. Those are two organizations with lots of young blue chip prospects who can probably be exploited in a trade. It sounds like it'll be harder to convince Florida or St. Louis to part with a key prospect, for example.

With the exception of the fact that Price has to approve any trade, dealing him to Carolina just makes a lot of sense for us. It gives the Canes an instant star and a splash to help them get to the playoffs. But something like the 2nd overall and Jake Bean for Price could make sense for both teams. If they want us to take Darling off their hands, then you ask for another piece.

Pacioretty to Carolina also makes some sense, as does Pacioretty to Calgary. But the team most likely to be able to re-sign him long-term, if you believe the rumors, is Florida. If you wait til July 1st and allow Florida to negotiate an extension with him, it might increase his value. If they can do that, they might be more willing to part with Borgstrom. My ask for Pacioretty would be Borgstrom and their 1st round pick in 2019, which again, is more than fair when you consider what players like Kane, Nash, and so on have fetched before.

And as for Weber, Edmonton would be my go-to target first. Toronto makes a lot of sense, especially with Babcock's history of drooling over Weber, but again, Edmonton has made it clear their priority this off-season is an offensive RH D man and they may go to great lengths to solve that problem. Again, I would try to push them for a package including their 10th overall pick and Klefbom (whom they want to get rid of) or Nurse, along with another piece like Puljujarvi, and I'd be willing to give up one of our 2nd rounders or another player like Shaw or Byron or Scherbak to make that happen.

That would mean that dealing Weber, Price, and Pacioretty, we could theoretically end up with a haul including Jake Bean, Svechnikov, Borgstrom, Puljujarvi, Klefbom, a 10th overall pick (to turn into a player like Dobson, Veleno, Hayton, or so on), and a 2019 1st rounder. Again, this is obviously all hypothetical, but while some people are going to suggest the trade returns are not realistic, the fact is that these returns are consistent with what other teams have paid for like players in the past. All three of our guys have strong trade value if you believe NHL insiders, and pulling in a haul like that for three guys heading towards the end of their primes before they get to that point could help to reset us in a big way and make us competitive maybe not in the next 2 years but certainly in 3 years, 5 years, and 7 years from now.

 

This all makes perfect sense and would put our team on the path for almost certain success in just a couple of years... which is exactly why MB wont do it. I am certain he still believes that WE are one of the teams " close to winning now" despite the empirical evidence to the contrary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love your thinking Ted. I was really, really hoping Bergevin was going to be fired this season, leaving the door open to a new GM to begin rebuilding in this manner.

Unfortunately, Molson has determined that keeping Bergevin for another season is the best next step. I cannot imagine him doing anything more than trading Pacioretty... and perhaps Galchenyuk because... well... Galchenyuk. I would love to use Price, Weber, and Pacioretty to begin a rebuild by netting ourselves a haul of picks and good young players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

I also believe we should look at trading Price, Pacioretty, and Weber... but I think the targets should be teams that are close to winning now and who may be willing to overpay for a chance that the player puts them over the top or at the very least gets them into the playoffs or a round or two further than they otherwise might have gone. I don't think Vancouver fits into that category for now, and I doubt they'd want to give up two 1st rounders. Likewise, I don't think we'd give up our 2019 and 2020 1st rounders to acquire Matt Duchene or Nik Backstrom or so on; I just don't think we're close enough to gamble our future like that. I think teams like Calgary, St. Louis, Edmonton, Florida, Carolina, Dallas, Philadelphia, Columbus, Vegas, and San Jose are more of those playoff-caliber teams who are on the uptick and might feel they can benefit from a boost to push them farther. Those are the teams I'd try to target first. Already-competitive teams like Nashville, Pittsburgh, Washington (especially if they lose Carlson), and Toronto might also be interested in some of our veterans. I also wonder if Buffalo might be willing to grab someone because they want to accelerate their recovery, having Eichel and likely Dahlin already. Best fits?

 

- Pacioretty to Calgary, Edmonton, Florida, LA, or Carolina.

- Weber to Edmonton, Toronto, Philly, or Vegas.

- Price to Carolina, Edmonton, Buffalo, Philly, St. Louis, or NYI.

 

Right now, I really love the idea of dealing with Carolina or Edmonton. Carolina's owner is desperate to make a splash and seemingly willing to trade prospects for an established veteran. And Dudley may be of the Bergevin mindset, having been one of his top advisors, and overvalue the likes of Weber or Price. Likewise, Edmonton is desperate to try and win now with McDavid and company in their prime, and their GM has a history of making very bad trades. Those are two organizations with lots of young blue chip prospects who can probably be exploited in a trade. It sounds like it'll be harder to convince Florida or St. Louis to part with a key prospect, for example.

With the exception of the fact that Price has to approve any trade, dealing him to Carolina just makes a lot of sense for us. It gives the Canes an instant star and a splash to help them get to the playoffs. But something like the 2nd overall and Jake Bean for Price could make sense for both teams. If they want us to take Darling off their hands, then you ask for another piece.

Pacioretty to Carolina also makes some sense, as does Pacioretty to Calgary. But the team most likely to be able to re-sign him long-term, if you believe the rumors, is Florida. If you wait til July 1st and allow Florida to negotiate an extension with him, it might increase his value. If they can do that, they might be more willing to part with Borgstrom. My ask for Pacioretty would be Borgstrom and their 1st round pick in 2019, which again, is more than fair when you consider what players like Kane, Nash, and so on have fetched before.

And as for Weber, Edmonton would be my go-to target first. Toronto makes a lot of sense, especially with Babcock's history of drooling over Weber, but again, Edmonton has made it clear their priority this off-season is an offensive RH D man and they may go to great lengths to solve that problem. Again, I would try to push them for a package including their 10th overall pick and Klefbom (whom they want to get rid of) or Nurse, along with another piece like Puljujarvi, and I'd be willing to give up one of our 2nd rounders or another player like Shaw or Byron or Scherbak to make that happen.

That would mean that dealing Weber, Price, and Pacioretty, we could theoretically end up with a haul including Jake Bean, Svechnikov, Borgstrom, Puljujarvi, Klefbom, a 10th overall pick (to turn into a player like Dobson, Veleno, Hayton, or so on), and a 2019 1st rounder. Again, this is obviously all hypothetical, but while some people are going to suggest the trade returns are not realistic, the fact is that these returns are consistent with what other teams have paid for like players in the past. All three of our guys have strong trade value if you believe NHL insiders, and pulling in a haul like that for three guys heading towards the end of their primes before they get to that point could help to reset us in a big way and make us competitive maybe not in the next 2 years but certainly in 3 years, 5 years, and 7 years from now.

 

Too bad you're not the GM BT!

As it stands we're doomed for failure and mediocrity because of Molson and Bergevin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to my above post, it could potentially allow you to look at a line-up like this in 2-3 years (let's say we include Scherbak and Byron or Shaw in the Edmonton deal and pick Svechnikov with the 2nd overall, Zadina with the 3rd, and Veleno with that 10th overall selection), without even considering the two 2019 1st rounders we'd have:

 

Galchenyuk-Borgstrom-Svechnikov

Drouin-Veleno-Zadina

Lehkonen-Poehling-Gallagher

Hudon-Danault-Puljujarvi

Carr

 

Klefbom-Petry

Mete-Juulsen

Bean-Brook

Reilly

 

Lindgren

McNiven/Primeau

 

Again, just an example... that D still needs some work and there are questions in goal, but your offence is stacked with skill and I'd feel a whole lot better about our future and our Cup window growing rather than shrinking. I think you could even look at trading a Gallagher or Drouin, for example, to acquire some help where you need it... or maybe you think about drafting Kotkaniemi at 3 (as much as it hurts to pass on Zadina) and then draft a D man at 10 instead of Veleno. There are options and again, obviously nothing set in stone, but fun little what-if game to play that gives you an idea of how you could easily re-build your roster by dealing away your veterans now before their stock drops off too much.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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