kinot-2

Rumours

1,666 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, FirstRoundPick said:

He's never helped teams before. At 10 million a year, I would pass. He has only had 1 good year in 10. Be bad contract.

You really do seem stuck on the past......it is not always an indicator of the player himself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 7:19 AM, FirstRoundPick said:

He's never helped teams before. At 10 million a year, I would pass. He has only had 1 good year in 10. Be bad contract.

 

On 6/27/2020 at 0:51 PM, ramcharger440 said:

You really do seem stuck on the past......it is not always an indicator of the player himself.

I’ll admit up front that I’m not a fan of the idea of adding Hall. I don’t love the money or the term it would likely cost to get’em, but all of that aside, I just don’t think he’d be a good fit. Personally, if we were to attempt a huge move along those lines, I’d much prefer to see us funnel our resources into Barzal. If we’re going to toss around 10mil with serous term, Barzal makes a lot more sense. And I’m not saying it’s a “must” or that we even should, but I’d rather make Barzal the highest paid player in the league and suffer the compensatory consequences than pay Hall $10 million x 6 or 8. With that said, if we were to go that route, I’d prefer to see us work out a trade then actually have to offer sheet the kid. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 2:40 PM, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

 

I’ll admit up front that I’m not a fan of the idea of adding Hall. I don’t love the money or the term it would likely cost to get’em, but all of that aside, I just don’t think he’d be a good fit. Personally, if we were to attempt a huge move along those lines, I’d much prefer to see us funnel our resources into Barzal. If we’re going to toss around 10mil with serous term, Barzal makes a lot more sense. And I’m not saying it’s a “must” or that we even should, but I’d rather make Barzal the highest paid player in the league and suffer the compensatory consequences than pay Hall $10 million x 6 or 8. With that said, if we were to go that route, I’d prefer to see us work out a trade then actually have to offer sheet the kid. 

Agree with everything here.

I dont think you can blame Hall for his teams' shortcomings - he's just one guy. Sakic was a generational talent but couldnt stop Quebec from having some alltime horrendous teams.  But, like you, i dont see Hall as a great fit for our team. Maybe if he was 5 years younger. But i feel like just as he's leaving his prime, our best players will be entering theirs. 

I like the idea of going after Barzal although honestly - even though none are close to his talent- between Suzuki, JK, Domi, Poehling, and others I feel like centre is not as pressing any more. We may not have a top 10 centre (although i think prime suzuki will be close and JK may still end up being better) if I was going to make a huge splash it would be for a LD.  sure we have some guys coming up like Romanov, Norlinder, Struble, Harris etc- but theres no 'sure things' there for a top pairing guy. I think we're set for #2 and #3 LD but #1?  If we could add someone thats 25 or under, Id make that move before all others. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, maas_art said:

Agree with everything here.

I dont think you can blame Hall for his teams' shortcomings - he's just one guy. Sakic was a generational talent but couldnt stop Quebec from having some alltime horrendous teams.  But, like you, i dont see Hall as a great fit for our team. Maybe if he was 5 years younger. But i feel like just as he's leaving his prime, our best players will be entering theirs. 

I like the idea of going after Barzal although honestly - even though none are close to his talent- between Suzuki, JK, Domi, Poehling, and others I feel like centre is not as pressing any more. We may not have a top 10 centre (although i think prime suzuki will be close and JK may still end up being better) if I was going to make a huge splash it would be for a LD.  sure we have some guys coming up like Romanov, Norlinder, Struble, Harris etc- but theres no 'sure things' there for a top pairing guy. I think we're set for #2 and #3 LD but #1?  If we could add someone thats 25 or under, Id make that move before all others. 

Agree with this... I think we could get more bang for our buck trying to go after a top-pairing D man than a forward right now. I always like the idea of building through top-end D and finding guys who spend 24-28 minutes on the ice a night rather than a good center who might still only play 20-22 minutes. I like the idea of having a couple of top-end back-enders and I think of groups like Savard-Robinson-Lapointe or Niedermayer-Stevens or Niedermayer-Pronger or Subban-Josi-Ellis-Ekholm or Jones-Werenski or so on. That's why I advocated offer-sheeting Werenski last summer instead of chasing Aho or Marner or a forward. Cheaper and impactful IMO.

As far as D men go this year, the UFA class doesn't offer anyone who would be a long-term solution, even if you have good vets like Pietrangelo available. The RFA class is usually more interesting if you think the Habs would consider an offer-sheet again or a trade-and-sign. I'd also consider a RHD to be almost as important as a LHD, given Weber and Petry's ages. If you're going after a guy who can be here for 5-7 years, then our right side might actually be weaker for more years in that span than the left side, which has better prospects coming up. That said, looking at the list of RFA's this year, there aren't a ton of viable solutions for the top pair and ironically-enough, Sergachev is the best option player-wise. Not sure if he'd ever think of coming back here though. Vince Dunn would probably be #2 on the list. Trade might be another route to go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its Eklund so im 100% sure its made up, but the thinking behind it is intriguing.

"According to three solid sources the Seattle franchise would like to make a move to land Carey Price to be their top piece and Montreal may be open to the idea following the 20-21 season. The folks in Seattle feel the only way for a young franchise to thrive is by grabbing a Fleury type top shelf keeper. 

Price, who hails from nearby British Columbia, would have to be open to the idea..."
 
There's definitely some logic behind the idea: 

From Seattle's standpoint:
- You can afford price
- You build around a key player
- The precedence was set in LV - so they may really want to model their expansion the same way (although i personally dont think it will work twice)
 
From Montreal's standpoint:
- You get out from under that contract that will probably cripple us in a couple of years
- You dont end up losing another key player like maybe Juulsen or Brook
- You have guys in the system (Primeau specifically) who may be able to take on the load
 
From Price's standpoint:
- He's likely not winning in Montreal for a while so would his chances be better in Seattle if they can somehow replicate LV's success?
- He gets out of the spotlight of Montreal where ever gaffe and slump is magnified ridiculously
- He plays much closer to home.
 
 
Anyway, i have no idea if its even remotely being considered but there's certainly some logic for all sides.    The big question is:  Could price still be traded? Because if yes, id rather explore that first, although with that contract you'd have to think he'd bring back very little the other way... 
 
 
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, maas_art said:

Its Eklund so im 100% sure its made up, but the thinking behind it is intriguing.

"According to three solid sources the Seattle franchise would like to make a move to land Carey Price to be their top piece and Montreal may be open to the idea following the 20-21 season. The folks in Seattle feel the only way for a young franchise to thrive is by grabbing a Fleury type top shelf keeper. 

Price, who hails from nearby British Columbia, would have to be open to the idea..."
 
There's definitely some logic behind the idea: 

From Seattle's standpoint:
- You can afford price
- You build around a key player
- The precedence was set in LV - so they may really want to model their expansion the same way (although i personally dont think it will work twice)
 
From Montreal's standpoint:
- You get out from under that contract that will probably cripple us in a couple of years
- You dont end up losing another key player like maybe Juulsen or Brook
- You have guys in the system (Primeau specifically) who may be able to take on the load
 
From Price's standpoint:
- He's likely not winning in Montreal for a while so would his chances be better in Seattle if they can somehow replicate LV's success?
- He gets out of the spotlight of Montreal where ever gaffe and slump is magnified ridiculously
- He plays much closer to home.
 
 
Anyway, i have no idea if its even remotely being considered but there's certainly some logic for all sides.    The big question is:  Could price still be traded? Because if yes, id rather explore that first, although with that contract you'd have to think he'd bring back very little the other way... 
 
 

I think a better trade would be with Colorado or Vancouver , Montreal could get prospects coming back the other way instead of just draft picks  . Seattle being a new team would not have prospects in the pipeline.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BornToBeAHab said:

I think a better trade would be with Colorado or Vancouver , Montreal could get prospects coming back the other way instead of just draft picks  . Seattle being a new team would not have prospects in the pipeline.

The problem with a trade is Price's contract.  $10.5m would be tough - maybe impossible - for most teams to take on.   A team that felt they were on the cusp of a cup, if not for a goaltender, maybe would - but i think it would have to be an older team that knew they were ready to blow things up.  So they would take on price for 1 or 2 cup runs, knowing they cant afford their team for long. Pittsburgh for example probably only has Crosby/Malkin/Letang prime for a couple more years.. Maybe we take back one short bad contract to offset for a couple of years.


There's not many teams like this though. Neither Colorado nor Vancouver fit the bill because they both have young superstars & are just hitting their stride as teams.  Would either look great with Price? Yes.  But it would hurt them the same way his contract may possibly hurt us, just as they need to resign their elite young players. 

 

Im not sure there's a suitor out there (and im ok with holding on to him if we need to) but Seattle does provide a unique possibility. Doubt it will happen though. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, maas_art said:

The problem with a trade is Price's contract.  $10.5m would be tough - maybe impossible - for most teams to take on.   A team that felt they were on the cusp of a cup, if not for a goaltender, maybe would - but i think it would have to be an older team that knew they were ready to blow things up.  So they would take on price for 1 or 2 cup runs, knowing they cant afford their team for long. Pittsburgh for example probably only has Crosby/Malkin/Letang prime for a couple more years.. Maybe we take back one short bad contract to offset for a couple of years.


There's not many teams like this though. Neither Colorado nor Vancouver fit the bill because they both have young superstars & are just hitting their stride as teams.  Would either look great with Price? Yes.  But it would hurt them the same way his contract may possibly hurt us, just as they need to resign their elite young players. 

 

Im not sure there's a suitor out there (and im ok with holding on to him if we need to) but Seattle does provide a unique possibility. Doubt it will happen though. 

The salary cap staying where it is doesn't help. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will anyone want to take Carey on, assuming the salary cap may stay pretty flat for the next several years? I'm doubtful. Do we get any of those sweet, sweet compliance buyouts with the new CBA?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Will anyone want to take Carey on, assuming the salary cap may stay pretty flat for the next several years? I'm doubtful. Do we get any of those sweet, sweet compliance buyouts with the new CBA?

Can't see the buyouts being an option. The UFA market hasn't opened up yet, so teams should be well aware of what their budgets are and what they can afford. Shouldn't see any of those ridiculous over payments this year.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 1:10 PM, maas_art said:

The problem with a trade is Price's contract.  $10.5m would be tough - maybe impossible - for most teams to take on.   A team that felt they were on the cusp of a cup, if not for a goaltender, maybe would - but i think it would have to be an older team that knew they were ready to blow things up.  So they would take on price for 1 or 2 cup runs, knowing they cant afford their team for long. Pittsburgh for example probably only has Crosby/Malkin/Letang prime for a couple more years.. Maybe we take back one short bad contract to offset for a couple of years.


There's not many teams like this though. Neither Colorado nor Vancouver fit the bill because they both have young superstars & are just hitting their stride as teams.  Would either look great with Price? Yes.  But it would hurt them the same way his contract may possibly hurt us, just as they need to resign their elite young players. 

 

Im not sure there's a suitor out there (and im ok with holding on to him if we need to) but Seattle does provide a unique possibility. Doubt it will happen though. 

Seattle is interesting because it puts Price's wife back near home, so that's a wild-card factor. I can see Carey thinking that's a win for him.

I'd agree with you on Vancouver not being a great fit, meaning they likely won't part with young pieces, but then again, there are rumors they want to trade Boeser now so who knows. If they think they're one goalie away from being a contender, maybe they'd part with a 1st rounder or two...

I think Colorado is even closer to Cup contention and so I could actually see them being okay with trading younger parts to make a move. With the cap, your window doesn't last long and if they wait 2-3 years, they may not be able to afford to keep all their key pieces. Makar is going to get paid in a year. Can they do that AND retain Mackinnon and Landeskog and Rantanen and so on. There have already been rumors out of Denver that the Avs would seriously consider trading Timmins or Byram to make themselves better this year and next, and we've heard of them entertaining the idea of adding another top-6 forward, but they could also see Price as a serious upgrade in goal, despite the cost and the long-term hit. If you felt Price made you the favorite to win the Cup next year and for a couple of years after, maybe they say let's do it and figure the rest out later. Maybe Colorado also wonders if they can grab Price for a year and then trade him to a team like Seattle a year later. If the trade is Price and Lehkonen for Byram, Kamenev, and a 1st, which team says no? I could see that as both teams addressing needs, akin to the Pacioretty trade to Vegas whereby they got better now during their window and we got better long-term when we had no window to win right away anyways.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eklund (so huge boulder of salt) says that Julien is really pressing MB to sign Krug (once off season signings are a thing).

Top LHD is obviously a huge need for us, and I have heard that Krug/Julien had a very good relationship (not the first time we've heard of a player going to a team based on the coach) plus the attraction of playing next to Weber (no matter what you think of him as a fan) is quite high amongst a lot of players.

Id be surprised it Boston would let him go, but i guess its ultimately his decision.  I am not sure what it would cost (in either $$ or term) but I would assume he'd be looking for 6+ years.  He's 29 right now so you're possibly getting into problems towards the end of the deal but if you really think you can win with Price/Weber/Petry then you need to figure out a way to fill that hole on LD ASAP.  Our forwards are starting to come into their own, our LHD depth is just a mess, but if you were to add a guy like Krug, everyone slots back to the correct depth positioning.  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, maas_art said:

Eklund (so huge boulder of salt) says that Julien is really pressing MB to sign Krug (once off season signings are a thing).

Top LHD is obviously a huge need for us, and I have heard that Krug/Julien had a very good relationship (not the first time we've heard of a player going to a team based on the coach) plus the attraction of playing next to Weber (no matter what you think of him as a fan) is quite high amongst a lot of players.

Id be surprised it Boston would let him go, but i guess its ultimately his decision.  I am not sure what it would cost (in either $$ or term) but I would assume he'd be looking for 6+ years.  He's 29 right now so you're possibly getting into problems towards the end of the deal but if you really think you can win with Price/Weber/Petry then you need to figure out a way to fill that hole on LD ASAP.  Our forwards are starting to come into their own, our LHD depth is just a mess, but if you were to add a guy like Krug, everyone slots back to the correct depth positioning.  

 

If they do go after Krug, we know they have also worked hard to bring Romanov over here and that he's not going to be playing in the AHL. So you would have Krug, Romanov, Chiarot, Mete, Kulak, etc. down the left side. You would have to think they'd be looking at trading Mete (who fills a similar role as Krug but less well) if they sign Krug.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

If they do go after Krug, we know they have also worked hard to bring Romanov over here and that he's not going to be playing in the AHL. So you would have Krug, Romanov, Chiarot, Mete, Kulak, etc. down the left side. You would have to think they'd be looking at trading Mete (who fills a similar role as Krug but less well) if they sign Krug.

This is actually part of the reason ive suggested packaging Mete with one of our higher end forwards (Domi, Drouin, Danault - whomever the team feels is most replaceable) to acquire a top pairing LD.  It would mitigate the loss for another team - they get a top forward AND a solid, young #3-5 D - allowing us to maximize the quality of the D coming back. 

Between Romanov, Kulak, Chiarot and co, I think we're fine for #2 and #3 LHD and depth.  But its that #1 we need.   

Once again though, i suspect we'll just play with a gaping hole and complain when guys who are ill suited to filling it, dont somehow start playing better than their ceiling. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a couple of trade proposals I saw on another site.

1. Sign and trade Domi (6 years x 6 Mil) + 2020 3rd for 8th OVA 

2. 2020 5th (Ana) to Vancouver for Suter + Virtanen. Then buy out Suter immediately and sign Virtanen to a 3.5 Mil x 5 year deal

3. Draft day 8th draft Perfetti or Holtz 9th Draft Schnider 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2020 at 0:57 PM, maas_art said:

This is actually part of the reason ive suggested packaging Mete with one of our higher end forwards (Domi, Drouin, Danault - whomever the team feels is most replaceable) to acquire a top pairing LD.  It would mitigate the loss for another team - they get a top forward AND a solid, young #3-5 D - allowing us to maximize the quality of the D coming back. 

Between Romanov, Kulak, Chiarot and co, I think we're fine for #2 and #3 LHD and depth.  But its that #1 we need.   

Once again though, i suspect we'll just play with a gaping hole and complain when guys who are ill suited to filling it, dont somehow start playing better than their ceiling. 

100%

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.