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

State Of The Habs 2018-19


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

The team was exciting to watch this season and they competed on most nights. Combine that with low expectations, and I think that's why most people are satisfied with a season that should have been deemed a failure by traditional standards.

As far as which depth forwards to bring back, I think you need to look at your potential line-up (barring trades or signings). We're likely going to have the following players in our top 9:

- Gallagher

- Drouin

- Domi

- Tatar

- Kotkaniemi

- Danault

Then I think you have another 4 players who could be 3rd line players but could be dropped to the 4th line if we have a good enough line-up:

- Armia

- Lehkonen

- Byron

- Shaw

And then at least two prospects who will fight to make the team in Poehling and Suzuki, with chances for players like Evans as well. No idea if McCarron gets another look, since apparently he's had surgery to correct a problem he's had for 4 years - maybe he comes back a different player. But in any case, you're looking at 10 guys who are fairly certain to be locks to be in the top 12, as well as two highly-touted prospects who will be given a shot. It means that there are 2 and maybe up to 4 spots open for depth players, and that's if they sign no one. So who's still around depth-wise?

- Peca, Deslauriers, and Weise are all signed for one more year. The latter two should not be back IMO, albeit that was true of Deslauriers last off-season and he got another shot. It would be ideal for us for both those players to be in the minors. Peca, I believe, will get another chance to win a spot as a 13th/14th forward.

- Hudon is as good as done here, so he shouldn't be a factor.

- So there could be space for at least one of Weal or Thompson. It likely comes down to cost... Weal has never scored more than 8 goals in a season, so if he expects a contract with a raise or a long-term deal, then we should let him walk. We can replace him. If he's willing to accept a 2-year deal for 1.5-1.7M a season, then it's reasonable to keep him. In Thompson's case, he's already 34. I would only offer him a one-year deal at something like 1.25M a year. If he doesn't want it, again, let him walk. I don't think we'll be starving for guys to play in the top 9, and we can find other players to round out the 4th line without overpaying.

When you look at the list of forwards we have available, I really wonder whether its time to move a guy like Drouin in a package to bring in a top pairing LD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, maas_art said:

When you look at the list of forwards we have available, I really wonder whether its time to move a guy like Drouin in a package to bring in a top pairing LD. 

But that would be the smart thing to do and I'm not holding out any hope there is a GM out there who never noticed his sub-par performance coming down the stretch when it counted the most. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

But that would be the smart thing to do and I'm not holding out any hope there is a GM out there who never noticed his sub-par performance coming down the stretch when it counted the most. 

The thing with GMs is they always want to see what a player "could" do for the and quantify it by saying he was in the wrong system or on the wrong line or something that makes the player look better on their team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, maas_art said:

When you look at the list of forwards we have available, I really wonder whether its time to move a guy like Drouin in a package to bring in a top pairing LD. 

I think he absolutely has to be one of the guys you look at as trade bait for the LHD. I outlined in a couple of other threads how the real possibilities to move were Drouin, Weber, and Petry. I doubt other guys we're willing to trade get it done. More ideal for us to deal Drouin rather than give up Weber or Petry, but it is what it is and we have relief coming with Juulsen, Brook, Fleury, etc on the right side. So if there's a deal to be made for a guy whose value might drop in the next year or two (Weber or Petry) and it gets a better return, I think you have to consider it.

In Drouin's case, he failed the eye test on effort many nights, but we have to remember that we're still a team short on elite skill. Look at this past year when we dealt away Pacioretty and Galchenyuk. Did we have other guys to play in the top 6? Yes. But we've sorely lacked their shooting ability and haven't been able to replace it on the PP. I wonder if you trade Drouin for a D man, do you lose something in terms of players who can carry the puck through the neutral zone and do you lose something in terms of offensive production for example. You have to give up something to get something, so I think it may be necessary to patch up a key hole in the defence, but at the same time, I don't think we can expect Byron or Lehkonen or Armia to be a permanent solution in the top 6. If you let Drouin go in a trade, it's because you think Suzuki is ready to play in the top 6 in the NHL or because you have a free agent (or another trade) in the works to fill that hole or because you are moving Poehling or Kotkaniemi into the top center role and Domi is sliding to the wing. There has to be a plan and a vision, as opposed to just making trades and hoping things fit together the way MB has done them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

He should wait until after the lottery tonight, so he can gloat when we get into the top 3.:frech1: :frech1:

If we get into the top three Molson, thinking it was a shrewd move, will give MB a 5 year extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

He should wait until after the lottery tonight, so he can gloat when we get into the top 3.:frech1: :frech1:

Gosh lets hope. 

Could you imagine?   If we were to get 1 or 2 Im assuming you go Hughes/ Kakko - but if you were to say, win pick #3... do you go off the board & pick Byram, who is mostly considered a #6-8 pick since he'd be by far our best positional need?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

Gosh lets hope. 

Could you imagine?   If we were to get 1 or 2 Im assuming you go Hughes/ Kakko - but if you were to say, win pick #3... do you go off the board & pick Byram, who is mostly considered a #6-8 pick since he'd be by far our best positional need?   

 

If I was at 3, my first hunch right now (and this will likely change) is to go with Cozens... big scoring center. I wouldn't draft by positional need, especially when you're up so high in the draft. Podkolzin is also potentially an elite scorer. I just don't think you can reach unless you really feel Byram is the best guy...

That said, no high hopes of getting into the top 3, so my guess is if we're at 15, we'll look at a D first if there are options between both D and forward where all he guys have some question marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jeff33 said:

the 2 names I was hearing on tsn were point and marner

Two very interesting options.  I dont think either the leafs or the lightning would let them leave but there's a chance you drive them to dumping other players a la Armia 2.0  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

If I was at 3, my first hunch right now (and this will likely change) is to go with Cozens... big scoring center. I wouldn't draft by positional need, especially when you're up so high in the draft. Podkolzin is also potentially an elite scorer. I just don't think you can reach unless you really feel Byram is the best guy...

That said, no high hopes of getting into the top 3, so my guess is if we're at 15, we'll look at a D first if there are options between both D and forward where all he guys have some question marks.

Yeah, agree.  Im curious if we're going to see Timmins go way off the mark with another Romanov type move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

Yeah, agree.  Im curious if we're going to see Timmins go way off the mark with another Romanov type move. 

The draft seems to have a lot of variation in rankings between pick 12 and pick 40 again. So might be the case that a lot of guys are "off the board" for one team and on point for another. There are a number of D men in that range that could make sense, but none who will be ready before at least 2-3 years. With Romanov being ruled out for next year, it makes a trade seem like the most likely course of action. I've posted already about how players like Gostisbehere, Murray, Matheson, etc. are all possibly available. I think we're headed somewhere along those lines, and I would not be surprised to see a move around the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Curiously, IF the team did make a pitch for Marner or Point, what are we thinking the AAV of those offers has to be? Surely Marner will want Auston Matthews money, right? Point will probably want something similar. Maybe he looks at Kucherov and says, "I should make somewhere CLOSE to that."

The problem with Marner is that you‘ll basically have to outbid Toronto to make sure they can‘t afford to match Cap-wise. That‘s going to cost you 4 first round picks if I’m not mistaken. Is he worth that? Maybe. Is he worth that to us specifically? I don’t think so. He‘s an amazing player but he’s not going to put us over the top to the extent that we can afford to spend 4 first rounders for him IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChiLla said:

The problem with Marner is that you‘ll basically have to outbid Toronto to make sure they can‘t afford to match Cap-wise. That‘s going to cost you 4 first round picks if I’m not mistaken. Is he worth that? Maybe. Is he worth that to us specifically? I don’t think so. He‘s an amazing player but he’s not going to put us over the top to the extent that we can afford to spend 4 first rounders for him IMO.

Very true. Sacrificing four first round draft choices for either Point or Marner would be... a lot to sacrifice. I do believe that Marner and Point are good enough to make us a playoff team, so those first rounders are probably not in the top-15, but... maybe they are. Who's to say? :unsure: Anywho, it's fun to speculate. I'd love to see the offer sheet used more frequently in the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Very true. Sacrificing four first round draft choices for either Point or Marner would be... a lot to sacrifice. I do believe that Marner and Point are good enough to make us a playoff team, so those first rounders are probably not in the top-15, but... maybe they are. Who's to say? :unsure: Anywho, it's fun to speculate. I'd love to see the offer sheet used more frequently in the NHL.

We‘d be a playoff team with Marner for sure, at least until Price goes down with an injury. If we had a solid team and a guy like Marner was the missing piece, I‘d be all for extending an offer sheet to get him. But we still have too many holes I think and with the new lottery system, even a middling first round pick can end up in the top three (see: Chicago). It‘s a huge risk to take for a team like ours but I totally agree in general, it‘d be fun to see more offer sheets around the league. Their gentleman‘s agreement kinda sucks 😉

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...