H_T_L

2019-20 State Of The Habs

2,757 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

This. Developmentally, I’m in no rush with Caufield. But every couple of years a high profile NCAA player decides to test FA rather than sign with the club that drafted them. I would really hate for Caufield to wind up on that list. I could care less is he suits up for the big’s, but if he wants to turn pro and start making some money I say sign him and stick him in Laval. I don’t see much risk with that. And at least it gets him under contract, eliminating the risk of loosing him for nothing. I also really don’t have an issue with him going back to school. I’ll just be extraordinary peev’d if we loose him to FA.

Exactly

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super rare home win. In before 27.:ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Exactly

I don't see any way in the world that Montreal loses this kid to FA ...I can't think of one example of that happening to a top 15 draft choice anywhere 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

I don't see any way in the world that Montreal loses this kid to FA ...I can't think of one example of that happening to a top 15 draft choice anywhere 

Jimmy Vessy and Kevin Hayes both went to college and refused to sign with the teams that drafted them. Vessy didn't want to play for Nashville after being drafted 66th over all and Kevin Hayes was drafted 24th overall and refused to sign with Chicago. Also other players that refused to sign before the window closed were Will Butcher, Blain Byron and Alex Kerfoot this allowed other teams to court them as FA however all eventually signed with their draft teams. Apparently though this is not just an NCAA issue but more and more draft picks are realizing that if they return to JR. and wait out the 2 year signing window they can then choose where they play. NCAA has a 4 year window OR and here is the biggest kicker 30 days after the last day the player attended college for those who leave college early (drop out). If they are 20 or under they get to reenter the draft but players over 20 are UFA's and can choose where they play. Basically more and more draft picks are realizing they have more power than they think and are exploiting it to play where they want.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Jimmy Vessy and Kevin Hayes both went to college and refused to sign with the teams that drafted them. Vessy didn't want to play for Nashville after being drafted 66th over all and Kevin Hayes was drafted 24th overall and refused to sign with Chicago. Also other players that refused to sign before the window closed were Will Butcher, Blain Byron and Alex Kerfoot this allowed other teams to court them as FA however all eventually signed with their draft teams. Apparently though this is not just an NCAA issue but more and more draft picks are realizing that if they return to JR. and wait out the 2 year signing window they can then choose where they play. NCAA has a 4 year window OR and here is the biggest kicker 30 days after the last day the player attended college for those who leave college early (drop out). If they are 20 or under they get to reenter the draft but players over 20 are UFA's and can choose where they play. Basically more and more draft picks are realizing they have more power than they think and are exploiting it to play where they want.

Also Blake Wheeler and Anders Lee also exploited this loophole. So did Frederick Anderson although he was a European player not an NCAA player.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

I don't see any way in the world that Montreal loses this kid to FA ...I can't think of one example of that happening to a top 15 draft choice anywhere 

I hope your right, and you probably are. I can’t think of any either, but I’m not exactly sure of what his, or any players draft position has to do with it. It does seem to exclusively happen to players drafted in the later rounds, that’s possibly partially because they are the type of players that have to wait a little longer for ELC offers. So (for developemental reasons) by the time they are appealing enough as players to be offered a contract, other teams are starting to have interest too. A team has 4 years to sign from the day drafted. Really the power is in the players hands. If a player really doesn’t want to play for the team that drafted them, or takes it personally that the aren’t being ELC’d as early as they think they deserve to be, they can just finish out 4 years of college, nab a degree while they’re at it and walk right into unrestricted free agency. I’m not saying Caufield would, but it wouldn’t shock me either. Here’s a guy that could have gone top 5, slips to 15 and visibly took it personally. His line mate goes 1st overall and steps right into the league, big paycheque and all. Maybe he don’t mind being told to go back to school for another year, or maybe he does mind. Either way, I don’t think it would really become concerning unless we try sending him back for a third time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

I hope your right, and you probably are. I can’t think of any either, but I’m not exactly sure of what his, or any players draft position has to do with it. It does seem to exclusively happen to players drafted in the later rounds, that’s possibly partially because they are the type of players that have to wait a little longer for ELC offers. So (for developemental reasons) by the time they are appealing enough as players to be offered a contract, other teams are starting to have interest too. A team has 4 years to sign from the day drafted. Really the power is in the players hands. If a player really doesn’t want to play for the team that drafted them, or takes it personally that the aren’t being ELC’d as early as they think they deserve to be, they can just finish out 4 years of college, nab a degree while they’re at it and walk right into unrestricted free agency. I’m not saying Caufield would, but it wouldn’t shock me either. Here’s a guy that could have gone top 5, slips to 15 and visibly took it personally. His line mate goes 1st overall and steps right into the league, big paycheque and all. Maybe he don’t mind being told to go back to school for another year, or maybe he does mind. Either way, I don’t think it would really become concerning unless we try sending him back for a third time. 

Here is the other thing if he feels slighted by sending him back to school this year he can then drop out and then we only have 30 days to sign him to an ELC or he reenters the draft. Kevin Hayes like I said above was drafted 24th over all by Chicago and refused to sign his ELC then became a UFA and signed with New York. These players mostly sign with their draft teams but if they don't like the team or feel the slightest overlooked they refuse to sign.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Tim Erixon, like above, was a 23rd pick and refused to play for the flames. They were forced to trade him to NYR before losing him

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another blown three goal lead and another poor handling of the 6 on 5.  

 

 

0

Share this post


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

I hope your right, and you probably are. I can’t think of any either, but I’m not exactly sure of what his, or any players draft position has to do with it. It does seem to exclusively happen to players drafted in the later rounds, that’s possibly partially because they are the type of players that have to wait a little longer for ELC offers. So (for developemental reasons) by the time they are appealing enough as players to be offered a contract, other teams are starting to have interest too. A team has 4 years to sign from the day drafted. Really the power is in the players hands. If a player really doesn’t want to play for the team that drafted them, or takes it personally that the aren’t being ELC’d as early as they think they deserve to be, they can just finish out 4 years of college, nab a degree while they’re at it and walk right into unrestricted free agency. I’m not saying Caufield would, but it wouldn’t shock me either. Here’s a guy that could have gone top 5, slips to 15 and visibly took it personally. His line mate goes 1st overall and steps right into the league, big paycheque and all. Maybe he don’t mind being told to go back to school for another year, or maybe he does mind. Either way, I don’t think it would really become concerning unless we try sending him back for a third time. 

 I don't know how personally he took being drafted 15th as opposed to 5th ( what he might have taken personally if anything was that his size was inhibiting being drafted earlier ) ...the team that finally took him were glad to get him and I think he was glad to finally get picked  …I'll say this ...Montreal will not let this kid go and at the very least will sign him and burn a year just to keep him ..if push comes to shove he'll land in Laval with a contract in hand one way or the other

…..of that I have no doubts 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amazing that some people wanted to trade Tatar " while his value was high " ….he just turned 29 , has had 7 straight years with 20 + goals ( his first full year in Detroit in 73 games scored 19 ) , never gets injured , leads the team in goals and assists by a wide margin ( personal high 61 points or .9 ppg  ) and is a great teammate from all accounts ...this is exactly the type of player Montreal should keep and extend . He's always in top shape and will probably keep it up till he's 34 or 35 . If Montreal was to find a perennial 20 + scorer and sign him to a contract as a free agent most fans would applaud the acquisition .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

I find it amazing that some people wanted to trade Tatar " while his value was high " ….he just turned 29 , has had 7 straight years with 20 + goals ( his first full year in Detroit in 73 games scored 19 ) , never gets injured , leads the team in goals and assists by a wide margin ( personal high 61 points or .9 ppg  ) and is a great teammate from all accounts ...this is exactly the type of player Montreal should keep and extend . He's always in top shape and will probably keep it up till he's 34 or 35 . If Montreal was to find a perennial 20 + scorer and sign him to a contract as a free agent most fans would applaud the acquisition .

I can only speak for myself, but as one of those people, my desire to trade him was based on asset management. We’re stacked at LW, his contract expires next season, and will be 30. To me it makes more sense to trade him than it does to trade Domi or Drouin. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, arpem-can said:

I find it amazing that some people wanted to trade Tatar " while his value was high " ….he just turned 29 , has had 7 straight years with 20 + goals ( his first full year in Detroit in 73 games scored 19 ) , never gets injured , leads the team in goals and assists by a wide margin ( personal high 61 points or .9 ppg  ) and is a great teammate from all accounts ...this is exactly the type of player Montreal should keep and extend . He's always in top shape and will probably keep it up till he's 34 or 35 . If Montreal was to find a perennial 20 + scorer and sign him to a contract as a free agent most fans would applaud the acquisition .

 

2 hours ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

I can only speak for myself, but as one of those people, my desire to trade him was based on asset management. We’re stacked at LW, his contract expires next season, and will be 30. To me it makes more sense to trade him than it does to trade Domi or Drouin. 

Yup.  

Tatar is a left wing at that position we have: Tatar, Domi, Drouin, Lehks and several centres who could play LW. Its easily our strongest position and Tatar is the oldest player there.

The bigger problem (to me anyway though) is this:  Id GLADLY take Tatar on my team for the next 3 or so years. I suspect he's going to want at least a 6 year deal.  Do i think he'll earn his keep for the first 3 or 4 years? You bet. But after that?  At a position we're already strong at?  Its a gamble.

So while i LOVE tatar & what he brings to the team, if the return was a top end LD prospect and a high pick + ... id have to consider it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just came across that FB post with some additional notes/quotes that didn't find their way into the published version of La Presse's interview with MB. The organization will have to make a decision on a number of 3rd-6th round picks from 2018, i.e. Cam Hillis, Allan McShane, Cole Fonstad, and Samuel Houde. If those guys aren't signed by the end of this summer, they can re-enter the draft again. MB says they'll probably only sign one of the four, so it looks like we'll lose the three others for nothing. Probably another reason we shouldn't be too thrilled when acquiring late round picks at the deadline, they rarely pan out anyway.

Edited by ChiLla
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChiLla said:

Just came across that FB post with some additional notes/quotes that didn't find their way into the published version of La Presse's interview with MB. The organization will have to make a decision on a number of 3rd-6th round picks from 2018, i.e. Cam Hillis, Allan McShane, Cole Fonstad, and Samuel Houde. If those guys aren't signed by the end of this summer, they can re-enter the draft again. MB says they'll probably only sign one of the four, so it looks like we'll lose the three others for nothing. Probably another reason we shouldn't be too thrilled when acquiring late round picks at the deadline, they rarely pan out anyway.

The main reason for this is that each team has a limit on how many contracts they can have at a time. So you can't just sign everyone or you'd go over the limit. Like you alluded to, it's why having quality picks is better than having quantity of picks. Most picks outside of the top 45 never pan out and yes, if you have ten picks, your odds of hitting are better than if you have only five, but the odds of one of ten players drafted after the second round hitting is similar to the chances of your first rounder hitting. So even if we have a draft with 13 picks, the team with three first rounders is better off in the long run... it's also easier to find guys to fill out your line-up via free agency or trade. If you lose Armia or Kulak or Weal or so on in free agency, you could easily find another guy like them by signing one or trading a mid-round pick. It's much harder to find the elite pieces that you mainly need to draft at the top of the first round. That's why Bergevin's philosophy about not wanting to deal established players for unknown draft picks and prospects is flawed. He's admitted free agency doesn't work because the best players get re-signed and never get there. So if he wants to find them, he needs to draft them, and those players get drafted early for the most part.

FWIW, the odds are high that if they only sign one of those 4, Hillis is the most likely. I doubt they sign Fonstad and Houde would only be signed for being a Quebecer, not for level of play. McShane has an outside shot. In the end, it's unlikely any of those players becomes an impact NHLer. We're looking at guys who would be bottom 6 forwards at best, so no big losses on the players but certainly a bit of a waste in terms of useless picks strategy-wise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChiLla said:

Just came across that FB post with some additional notes/quotes that didn't find their way into the published version of La Presse's interview with MB. The organization will have to make a decision on a number of 3rd-6th round picks from 2018, i.e. Cam Hillis, Allan McShane, Cole Fonstad, and Samuel Houde. If those guys aren't signed by the end of this summer, they can re-enter the draft again. MB says they'll probably only sign one of the four, so it looks like we'll lose the three others for nothing. Probably another reason we shouldn't be too thrilled when acquiring late round picks at the deadline, they rarely pan out anyway.

really.?..that just sounds like mismanagement to me ...Are they just not good enough or is there no room in the system for them ?...I'd be disappointed if just one had to go ….all those players haven't even had a sniff at the development can …it almost sounds like Montreal wants to make a splash at the draft by picking a lot of players but not necessarily quality ones …...perhaps they can be moved in trades who knows ? …  ...I'd rather see these " new picks " acquired at the draft this year somehow  packaged  in a trade / trades before or on draft day but the other gms aren't stupid either ….there's always a chance teams over-look someone of value but it's a rare bird....I thought at least 3 of those  4 players mentioned had something to offer the organization 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

26 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

The main reason for this is that each team has a limit on how many contracts they can have at a time. So you can't just sign everyone or you'd go over the limit. Like you alluded to, it's why having quality picks is better than having quantity of picks. Most picks outside of the top 45 never pan out and yes, if you have ten picks, your odds of hitting are better than if you have only five, but the odds of one of ten players drafted after the second round hitting is similar to the chances of your first rounder hitting. So even if we have a draft with 13 picks, the team with three first rounders is better off in the long run... it's also easier to find guys to fill out your line-up via free agency or trade. If you lose Armia or Kulak or Weal or so on in free agency, you could easily find another guy like them by signing one or trading a mid-round pick. It's much harder to find the elite pieces that you mainly need to draft at the top of the first round. That's why Bergevin's philosophy about not wanting to deal established players for unknown draft picks and prospects is flawed. He's admitted free agency doesn't work because the best players get re-signed and never get there. So if he wants to find them, he needs to draft them, and those players get drafted early for the most part.

FWIW, the odds are high that if they only sign one of those 4, Hillis is the most likely. I doubt they sign Fonstad and Houde would only be signed for being a Quebecer, not for level of play. McShane has an outside shot. In the end, it's unlikely any of those players becomes an impact NHLer. We're looking at guys who would be bottom 6 forwards at best, so no big losses on the players but certainly a bit of a waste in terms of useless picks strategy-wise.

 

14 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

really.?..that just sounds like mismanagement to me ...Are they just not good enough or is there no room in the system for them ?...I'd be disappointed if just one had to go ….all those players haven't even had a sniff at the development can …it almost sounds like Montreal wants to make a splash at the draft by picking a lot of players but not necessarily quality ones …...perhaps they can be moved in trades who knows ? …  ...I'd rather see these " new picks " acquired at the draft this year somehow  packaged  in a trade / trades before or on draft day but the other gms aren't stupid either ….there's always a chance teams over-look someone of value but it's a rare bird....I thought at least 3 of those  4 players mentioned had something to offer the organization 

Yep, as Ted explained in his previous post, the contract limit is key. Unfortunately, we can't just go out and sign everybody and keep waiting for them to develop, so it's not really mismanagement I think – at some point your prospects have to actually get better and force your hand to make room for them. From what I've heard, McShane has progressed rather slowly since being drafted, Hillis missed about half of last year's regular season due to injuries, Fonstad was recently converted to wing (which apparently helped his game) and Houde is now injured but has seemingly fallen out of favor a bit because he wasn't very impressive in the Q.

All in all, my money would be on Hillis as well, despite the injuries. He seems to have the biggest upside of the four and could become a good AHLer with callup potential.

Edited by ChiLla
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

really.?..that just sounds like mismanagement to me ...Are they just not good enough or is there no room in the system for them ?...I'd be disappointed if just one had to go ….all those players haven't even had a sniff at the development can …it almost sounds like Montreal wants to make a splash at the draft by picking a lot of players but not necessarily quality ones …...perhaps they can be moved in trades who knows ? …  ...I'd rather see these " new picks " acquired at the draft this year somehow  packaged  in a trade / trades before or on draft day but the other gms aren't stupid either ….there's always a chance teams over-look someone of value but it's a rare bird....I thought at least 3 of those  4 players mentioned had something to offer the organization 

I wouldn’t go that far as to say mismanagement- all those ELC’s come with a signing bonus - why string every pick along and waste money? Some of those players need a carrot to chase - agree with Ted that it’s likely to be Hillis as he’s shown strong progression. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ChiLla said:

Just came across that FB post with some additional notes/quotes that didn't find their way into the published version of La Presse's interview with MB. The organization will have to make a decision on a number of 3rd-6th round picks from 2018, i.e. Cam Hillis, Allan McShane, Cole Fonstad, and Samuel Houde. If those guys aren't signed by the end of this summer, they can re-enter the draft again. MB says they'll probably only sign one of the four, so it looks like we'll lose the three others for nothing. Probably another reason we shouldn't be too thrilled when acquiring late round picks at the deadline, they rarely pan out anyway.

I see no reason that we can’t make room for these guys. I’ll be disappointed if we don’t find a way to sign at least 3 of the 4. I’d be hard pressed to believe there aren’t at least 3 plugs that we’ve already seen enough of in Laval to move on from and give these kids a chance to surprise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yvon Pedneaulton TVA says that if he were Molson, both Julien and Bergevin would be fired this off-season. He seems to think Julien being gone is a given and adds that Bergevin has had way too many mulligans already. He said Bergevin keeps selling the idea that he's re-tooling, but he's already done this several times.

JC Lajoie says he thinks Bergevin deserves one more year but that if the Habs miss the playoffs next year, he should be fired.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Yvon Pedneaulton TVA says that if he were Molson, both Julien and Bergevin would be fired this off-season. He seems to think Julien being gone is a given and adds that Bergevin has had way too many mulligans already. He said Bergevin keeps selling the idea that he's re-tooling, but he's already done this several times.

JC Lajoie says he thinks Bergevin deserves one more year but that if the Habs miss the playoffs next year, he should be fired.

I feel like Julien is gone too.  Honestly, at this point id probably relieve him of duties right now. Why? because we technically stil have a chance to make the playoffs so he's going to continue to overplay price, overplay weber, overplay petry for that (basically impossible) task.   Relieve him of duties & make Muller or Ducharme interim. Tell them to go through the motions.


If you asked me a month ago i would have said MB was safe.  But every day, every blown lead, every time a media report comes out ridiculing the habs, i think Molson gets that much closer to axing MB. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renaud Lavoie says that he expects MB to offer Domi a contract in the range of 4-5 years for maybe 6-6.5M per season. He says Domi may want 8M per year but that if he goes to arbitration, no arbitrator will give him that. He says Domi's value for next year may be about 5M, but as he starts to give up UFA years, that number will go up. He thinks a 4-5 year deal would be a good compromise because Domi clearly wants a long-term deal, and he says at most, Bergevin may go up to 7 years but probably prefers a bridge deal to figure out what Domi's worth is... so Lavoie says a 4-5 year pact would be a compromise for both sides.

Maybe he's way off, but I don't think he is, so it gives you an idea of what it would take to re-sign Domi. Maybe 6-6.5M on a 4-5 year deal. Maybe 7M on a 7-year deal. It's going to be something in that range.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigTed3 said:

Renaud Lavoie says that he expects MB to offer Domi a contract in the range of 4-5 years for maybe 6-6.5M per season. He says Domi may want 8M per year but that if he goes to arbitration, no arbitrator will give him that. He says Domi's value for next year may be about 5M, but as he starts to give up UFA years, that number will go up. He thinks a 4-5 year deal would be a good compromise because Domi clearly wants a long-term deal, and he says at most, Bergevin may go up to 7 years but probably prefers a bridge deal to figure out what Domi's worth is... so Lavoie says a 4-5 year pact would be a compromise for both sides.

Maybe he's way off, but I don't think he is, so it gives you an idea of what it would take to re-sign Domi. Maybe 6-6.5M on a 4-5 year deal. Maybe 7M on a 7-year deal. It's going to be something in that range.

Id personally be quite happy with 4 years at $6m.   

0

Share this post


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

Id personally be quite happy with 4 years at $6m.   

I'd agree with that and I believe it's doable but the contract I'm more interested in is Gallagher and what that's going to cost because he's been far more consistent than Domi...one thing is certain-  Drouin at 5.5 will be surpassed for fun ..the days of affordable contracts are coming to a close 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

I'd agree with that and I believe it's doable but the contract I'm more interested in is Gallagher and what that's going to cost because he's been far more consistent than Domi...one thing is certain-  Drouin at 5.5 will be surpassed for fun ..the days of affordable contracts are coming to a close 

Unless Domi re-signs for 1 year at a time, I would be inclined to believe that Domi, Tatar, Gallagher, and Danault will all surpass Drouin's 5.5M mark. If Suzuki signs long-term, he should too. We'll need to make decisions...

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.