ramcharger440

Changes

22 posts in this topic

I know we are all frustrated and we will probably still have MB to contend with at least to start the year but what changes do you all think we need to make? not pie in the sky stuff but moves that could actually happen? we are going to have to move at least one if not more of our main players to get impact players that will make a difference. i am sure we will see some big moves in the off season what would you do?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The frustrating part is that we are actually on the cusp of being good. The problem is that several key pieces of our roster will not be around (or not be in prime) for that.  

If we didnt have such a stubborn GM he could see that.  Shea Weber is one of my favourite players (note the new painting i did of him that is now my profile picture) but it is in absolutely nobody's interest to keep him on this team - including Shea's!   He has a few good years left in him most likely so why not move him to a contender who could use him & will pay in futures.  Much like Pacioretty was more useful to Las Vegas than here, Shea Weber could take a very good team & make them a favourite but that move needs to be done NOW.

Trading Petry isnt as imperative because he still hasnt lost as much of a step (and if you move Weber then maybe Petry is worth keeping) but id also explore that as he is on the wrong side of 30.

Price, i think, is here to stay. Unless he specifically asks for a trade, i dont see MB moving him, i dont think there would be *that many* gms who could take him - and frankly, i dont mind keeping him.  Yes, he's overpaid, but he should still be good for a while. Add an actual defense in front of him & i could see him having a renaissance like other elite tenders have had in the past. 

 

Then you have guys like Tatar - and possibly even Gallagher or Danault.  29, 27, 27...  could they still be key core players when guys like Suzuki, Romanov, JK, Caufield and co are our main guys? Maybe.  But what will it cost to retain them?

I like Tatar a lot & could see him being a useful player for several more years but what if he wants $7m/7y?   If you trade him now, you could get a Pacioretty like return & set yourself up with players who are just hitting their stride when Tomas is out of his.



The problem is that i dont see MB getting fired. I do think Julien might but as long as MB is in charge, Weber stays, our vets get older and lose value and we end up missing out on moving players at peak value for young core players. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

I know we are all frustrated and we will probably still have MB to contend with at least to start the year but what changes do you all think we need to make? not pie in the sky stuff but moves that could actually happen? we are going to have to move at least one if not more of our main players to get impact players that will make a difference. i am sure we will see some big moves in the off season what would you do?

1. Most important change is that Bergevin needs to go. Enough is enough.

2. Molson need to hire a President with the balls to stick up to the French media and separatist politicians and hire the best GM and coaches available, regardless of language.

3. Julien is a great coach but no longer the right man for this job, so he needs to go too. I'd like to see them think outside the box with the next hire and get someone with a different approach to the game. No more old-school coaches.

4 Domi for Dumba. Of all the trades we've heard proposed, this makes the most sense to me. Domi, as good as he has been at times, is going to command a bigger salary and wants to play center. It sounds like it's a choice whereby we keep two of him, Suzuki, and Kotkaniemi longer-term, and we need a trade chip for help on D. I doubt Tatar brings us Dumba, but if Minnesota is looking for a younger, offensive top 6 center, Domi fits that bill.

5. Trade Weber. With MB gone, a new GM has to be able to have a plan for when we're going to win the Cup. Not just make the playoffs. Not just a plan to sneak in and then anything can happen. Win the Cup. Anything else is a failure when you look back in history. Everyone knows the Habs have 24 Cups. I doubt too many people know off the top of their heads how many Cup finals they've been in where they lost. With that in mind, we're not winning a Cup with our current roster in the next two years. So let's get rid of guys who won't help in three years and let's stock up on players and picks who might. Weber is the posterboy for an ideology that grit and past performance make up for current skill and ability. Is he still good now? Yes. Will he be worth his contract when we're ready to win a Cup? I doubt it. Perfect time to make a trade. Dump your depreciating asset for one that can help you for 5-10 years. If we can deal Weber for a package that includes a young D man with top 3 potential or a young forward with top 6 potential, that's a win. Think Bowen Byram, Evan Bouchard, Jake Bean, Noah Dobson, Oliver Wahlstrom, or so on. If you get the Leafs to bite at Weber plus a 2nd for Nylander, or something like that, even better.

0

Share this post


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

4 Domi for Dumba. Of all the trades we've heard proposed, this makes the most sense to me. Domi, as good as he has been at times, is going to command a bigger salary and wants to play center. It sounds like it's a choice whereby we keep two of him, Suzuki, and Kotkaniemi longer-term, and we need a trade chip for help on D. I doubt Tatar brings us Dumba, but if Minnesota is looking for a younger, offensive top 6 center, Domi fits that bill.

 

I would certainly do Domi for Dumba, you could possibly be getting the best defenseman in the league. I know he has not reached that level yet, but could very well become that..

If you were able to do that I would hold onto Weber. Why? because he can then be a number two on the right side...so would likely extend his career for another 3 or 4 years.....

That would allow the growth of Brooks, Fleury and hopefully a renewed hope for Jullsen.....

Package Petry and Tatar for a number one left deeman and sign Taylor Hall and Kreider.

 

No but  seriously, i would give up almost anything for dumba....

0

Share this post


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

Domi for Dumba. Of all the trades we've heard proposed, this makes the most sense to me. Domi, as good as he has been at times, is going to command a bigger salary and wants to play center. It sounds like it's a choice whereby we keep two of him, Suzuki, and Kotkaniemi longer-term, and we need a trade chip for help on D. I doubt Tatar brings us Dumba, but if Minnesota is looking for a younger, offensive top 6 center, Domi fits that bill.

 

33 minutes ago, caperns61 said:

I would certainly do Domi for Dumba, you could possibly be getting the best defenseman in the league. I know he has not reached that level yet, but could very well become that..

If you were able to do that I would hold onto Weber. Why? because he can then be a number two on the right side...so would likely extend his career for another 3 or 4 years.....

That would allow the growth of Brooks, Fleury and hopefully a renewed hope for Jullsen.....

Package Petry and Tatar for a number one left deeman and sign Taylor Hall and Kreider.

 

No but  seriously, i would give up almost anything for dumba....

I don’t get the appeal... Maybe you guys can explain it to me, maybe I’m just not seeing it. What’s so hot about Dumba? I don’t see it in his numbers. Not bad, but not great. His contract is about the same, not bad, not great. He’s a right handed shot, so he doesn’t actually fit the current need that we have. Had we traded Petry, he’d make an alright replacement. But I’m not sure it would be strategically sound to trade Petry if it costs us a player of Domi’s caliber to replace him. And lastly, Dumba is young and under contract for the next 4 seasons, why is Minnisota shopping him?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caperns61 said:

If you were able to do that I would hold onto Weber. Why? because he can then be a number two on the right side...so would likely extend his career for another 3 or 4 years.....

Honestly I dont have a problem with holding on to either Weber or Petry I just dont think we can keep both.  Yes, they are both depreciating assets but you also cant trade all your vets.  If the right deals came along Id move both, sure but i think its imperative that we move at least one.  The other one can be #1 for a couple more years or, if we end up getting a top pairing guy, can move back to the second pair already. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

 

I don’t get the appeal... Maybe you guys can explain it to me, maybe I’m just not seeing it. What’s so hot about Dumba? I don’t see it in his numbers. Not bad, but not great. His contract is about the same, not bad, not great. He’s a right handed shot, so he doesn’t actually fit the current need that we have. Had we traded Petry, he’d make an alright replacement. But I’m not sure it would be strategically sound to trade Petry if it costs us a player of Domi’s caliber to replace him. And lastly, Dumba is young and under contract for the next 4 seasons, why is Minnisota shopping him?

1. He is only 25 and there is only 3 other defenseman in all of the NHL who have scored more goals per game under 30 then him. And only one of them is younger.

Since 2015

Edited by caperns61
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caperns61 said:

1. He is only 25 and there is only 3 other defenseman in all of the NHL who have scored more goals per game under 30 then him. And only one of them is younger.

Since 2015

Is that true? Dumba has scored 62 goals. So there are only 3 players (other than Dumba), under the age of 30, that have scored 62 or more goals? Or do you mean 3 players 25 or under? 

0

Share this post


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

Is that true? Dumba has scored 62 goals. So there are only 3 players (other than Dumba), under the age of 30, that have scored 62 or more goals? Or do you mean 3 players 25 or under? 

 

I need to correct my self a bit :), few to many beers last night....Dumba was drafted in 2012. Here are the top 5 goal scoring defenseman drafted in  2012 or later

He is in elite category.  My data is about 15 games behind. Other then Werenski...Dumba has played fewer games.. I know people dont put much stock in plus minus but he is a plus player, he hits like a truck. If Minny would unload him for Domi, i would be all over it, then I would try to make a move with vegas to get Shea Theodore, how about Petry and a pick or Petry/Mete, Petry/Poeling or just Petry..

I dee of Dumba/Theodore, Weber/Chariot/Mete, Romanov/Brooks/Fleury/Julsen, instant credibiliy on the back end for many years..

Player Draft Year Games Played Goals Age as of today :)
Aaron Ekblad 2014 438 71 24
Seth Jones 2013 519 59 25
Matt Dumba 2012 392 59 25
Morgan Rielly 2012 516 54 25
Zach Werenski 2015 281 53 22
     
Edited by caperns61
0

Share this post


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

 

I don’t get the appeal... Maybe you guys can explain it to me, maybe I’m just not seeing it. What’s so hot about Dumba? I don’t see it in his numbers. Not bad, but not great. His contract is about the same, not bad, not great. He’s a right handed shot, so he doesn’t actually fit the current need that we have. Had we traded Petry, he’d make an alright replacement. But I’m not sure it would be strategically sound to trade Petry if it costs us a player of Domi’s caliber to replace him. And lastly, Dumba is young and under contract for the next 4 seasons, why is Minnisota shopping him?

I like Dumba. Good shot, willing to be involved in the play, decent skater. Established enough to help our top 4 now but young enough to still be relevant in 2-4 years when our younger guys are ready.

I posted a few days ago about our needs by position, and while RW, top line center, and LHD are some of our bigger needs for now, they're also positions at which we have more depth in our prospect pool. If you look at the pipeline on RHD, it's maybe our weakest position. We have Fleury, who projects as a 3rd-pairing guy. We have Juulsen, who is questionable as to how long his health will hold up. And we have Brook, who is probably our only RHD prospect right now with top 4 potential but who is very much still a question mark. The rest of our top D prospects play the left side. Weber is 34 and Petry is 32, and it could very quickly happen that these players are no longer effective, at least in terms of their ability to play big minutes and be top 3 defencemen. I don't see an immediate solution in house, unless they get lucky and are able to draft Drysdale (who himself is probably at least 2-3 years away from the NHL). So Dumba becomes a nice stop-gap.

Minnesota is apparently hard-up for a young center. They have Koivu who is 36 and Staal who is 35 and then Eriksson Ek and Rask, neither of whom has been able to be a top 6 center yet. So Domi would do the same thing for them at center as Dumba would do for us at RHD. It's not to say we can't use Domi, it's not to say he can't be a 60-70 point guy for another 5 years, but we have young centers to replace him and we don't have young RHD. Minnesota reportedly feels like they can trade either Brodin or Dumba to fill a more pressing need at center, so it's a good fit for us to take advantage of...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not as anti-MB and "reset" as most people here.

I'd like to move a forward for an LD in a hockey move if such a move is available. 

We have a lot of RFA/UFA on this team next year. I'd start negotiating early and if we're having a similar season to this one, trade them. 

I'm not willing to pay Tatar much more than he is making now, so I'd move him. 

Gallager is getting a raise but are we talking 6-7 million or 9 million? If its the latter, trade!

Danault is a great player but he's never scored more than 13 goals in a season! I'm not paying 5 million a year for a guy who can't even get to 20 goals.

Ditto for Armia, despite the size he adds. 

Ditto for Lehkonen. 

I want to re-sign Petry but not a 7-8 million a year. I think 6 maybe 6.5 is fair. 

If MB starts paying high prices for players on a losing team, I'm going to have a problem with that. Sign the guys that are reasonable, and if we're playing at a similar level, trade the hold outs who want a raise for not making the playoffs for 3 years

0

Share this post


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

I'm not as anti-MB and "reset" as most people here.

I'd like to move a forward for an LD in a hockey move if such a move is available. 

We have a lot of RFA/UFA on this team next year. I'd start negotiating early and if we're having a similar season to this one, trade them. 

I'm not willing to pay Tatar much more than he is making now, so I'd move him. 

Gallager is getting a raise but are we talking 6-7 million or 9 million? If its the latter, trade!

Danault is a great player but he's never scored more than 13 goals in a season! I'm not paying 5 million a year for a guy who can't even get to 20 goals.

Ditto for Armia, despite the size he adds. 

Ditto for Lehkonen. 

I want to re-sign Petry but not a 7-8 million a year. I think 6 maybe 6.5 is fair. 

If MB starts paying high prices for players on a losing team, I'm going to have a problem with that. Sign the guys that are reasonable, and if we're playing at a similar level, trade the hold outs who want a raise for not making the playoffs for 3 years

The problem with UFA's is that the player controls everything. All 4 of our big-name UFA's in 2021 will be able to command the salary/term they want somewhere and they may also be able to move to a team with a better chance at winning the Cup. So it's up to us to either cough up the money or else come up with another reason why they should stay (Do they really love the city? Do they think we're close to winning a Cup?). In Petry's case, he's got young kids who might be in school, so maybe he's less inclined to want to move them. Gallagher and Tatar are likely more mobile, and Danault's kid is too young for school, although he and his wife are both from Quebec.

So I'll come back to what I think the UFA's are going to ask for...

- Gallagher: 7 years at 7.5M. He might even ask for 8, but I think he's settle for 7 and I think he's going to want to be the highest-paid forward on the team. He's been our best goal-scorer and he is consistent, if he can stay healthy. Is he worth paying into his mid-late 30's? That's another question, especially with his style of play being a risk for wearing him down with age, but let's say that's his ask. What's the lowest he goes? Probably 6 years at 7M a year, but I think that's a longshot... someone will give him 7 years. If you tack on a NTC and a shot at the captaincy, maybe that makes it more enticing to him.

- Danault: 6 years at 6.25M. He's easily a better player than JG Pageau, who just signed 6 years at 5M at an older age. He might want 7 or 8 years, but I think as a middle-6 player, he will likely have to settle for 6 years if the salary is over 6M. The best I think he'd settle for is 6 years at 5.5M.

- Tatar: 6 years at 6.75M. Again, I think he's going to want more than Drouin. I think he's going to want a long-term deal, given it's probably his last big contract. He might be looking for 7M a year, but I think this would be a compromise for him. I think the lowest he would go would be 5 years at 6M.

- Petry: 5 years at 7.5M. I think he might be more willing to go a bit shorter than the others, given his age, but he'll still want more years than the optimal contract for the Habs, which would probably be 3 years. When you pro-rate everything for the cap increase, he deserves more money than Weber, so I think we're looking at something over 7M. The lowest I think he goes is 4 years, 7M.

If you tack on Domi, I think he'll be looking for 6.5M+ for 6 years or else at least 5M on a 2 or 3 year deal. Then add on Suzuki and Kotkaniemi needing renewals, the former of whom looks like he's heading towards an 8-year pact and the latter towards a bridge deal. Bottom line is that it's going to be near-impossible to keep everyone, unless you trade Weber or Price or both. I don't think you can afford the 4 UFA's AND Domi AND Suzuki all on bigger deals on top of what you're already giving Drouin, Weber, and Price.

Another thing to keep in mind is how this all affects the expansion draft plan. Every UFA you sign before the ED costs you a spot in your ED protection. As it stands right now, Price has to be protected for his NMC and Primeau is exempt. We would have to re-sign Lindgren though (or another vet) to be able to expose someone. On D, you get to protect 3 of Weber, Petry, Fleury, Juulsen, Mete, and Chiarot. Right now, I wouldn't bother protecting Mete or Chiarot. Re-signing Petry likely means you expose Juulsen, which maybe isn't the end of the world unless he comes back strong next year, in which case, it means you expose Fleury. There are decent odds that Seattle claims one of Chiarot, Mete, or Fleury/Juulsen then, and you have guys in the organization to replace them.

Up front, it's trickier. Drouin, Domi, Kotkaniemi, and Lehkonen are almost locks to be protected if they're still here. I think Byron is likely exposed as a 32-year old with two more years left on his deal. And Evans is playing his way into the need to protect him. So that's 4-5 signed forwards who need protection. So you can't re-sign all of Tatar, Gallagher, Armia, and Danault ahead of the ED date, or else you now have 8-9 guys to protect for 7 spots. If you re-sign them all, then Evans is almost certainly one of the two to get exposed and then the last one becomes a gamble. I'd guess Armia might be next though, and he may be a guy you risk not signing until after the ED.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12
16 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

The problem with UFA's is that the player controls everything. All 4 of our big-name UFA's in 2021 will be able to command the salary/term they want somewhere and they may also be able to move to a team with a better chance at winning the Cup. So it's up to us to either cough up the money or else come up with another reason why they should stay (Do they really love the city? Do they think we're close to winning a Cup?). In Petry's case, he's got young kids who might be in school, so maybe he's less inclined to want to move them. Gallagher and Tatar are likely more mobile, and Danault's kid is too young for school, although he and his wife are both from Quebec.

So I'll come back to what I think the UFA's are going to ask for...

- Gallagher: 7 years at 7.5M. He might even ask for 8, but I think he's settle for 7 and I think he's going to want to be the highest-paid forward on the team. He's been our best goal-scorer and he is consistent, if he can stay healthy. Is he worth paying into his mid-late 30's? That's another question, especially with his style of play being a risk for wearing him down with age, but let's say that's his ask. What's the lowest he goes? Probably 6 years at 7M a year, but I think that's a longshot... someone will give him 7 years. If you tack on a NTC and a shot at the captaincy, maybe that makes it more enticing to him.

- Danault: 6 years at 6.25M. He's easily a better player than JG Pageau, who just signed 6 years at 5M at an older age. He might want 7 or 8 years, but I think as a middle-6 player, he will likely have to settle for 6 years if the salary is over 6M. The best I think he'd settle for is 6 years at 5.5M.

- Tatar: 6 years at 6.75M. Again, I think he's going to want more than Drouin. I think he's going to want a long-term deal, given it's probably his last big contract. He might be looking for 7M a year, but I think this would be a compromise for him. I think the lowest he would go would be 5 years at 6M.

- Petry: 5 years at 7.5M. I think he might be more willing to go a bit shorter than the others, given his age, but he'll still want more years than the optimal contract for the Habs, which would probably be 3 years. When you pro-rate everything for the cap increase, he deserves more money than Weber, so I think we're looking at something over 7M. The lowest I think he goes is 4 years, 7M.

If you tack on Domi, I think he'll be looking for 6.5M+ for 6 years or else at least 5M on a 2 or 3 year deal. Then add on Suzuki and Kotkaniemi needing renewals, the former of whom looks like he's heading towards an 8-year pact and the latter towards a bridge deal. Bottom line is that it's going to be near-impossible to keep everyone, unless you trade Weber or Price or both. I don't think you can afford the 4 UFA's AND Domi AND Suzuki all on bigger deals on top of what you're already giving Drouin, Weber, and Price.

Another thing to keep in mind is how this all affects the expansion draft plan. Every UFA you sign before the ED costs you a spot in your ED protection. As it stands right now, Price has to be protected for his NMC and Primeau is exempt. We would have to re-sign Lindgren though (or another vet) to be able to expose someone. On D, you get to protect 3 of Weber, Petry, Fleury, Juulsen, Mete, and Chiarot. Right now, I wouldn't bother protecting Mete or Chiarot. Re-signing Petry likely means you expose Juulsen, which maybe isn't the end of the world unless he comes back strong next year, in which case, it means you expose Fleury. There are decent odds that Seattle claims one of Chiarot, Mete, or Fleury/Juulsen then, and you have guys in the organization to replace them.

Up front, it's trickier. Drouin, Domi, Kotkaniemi, and Lehkonen are almost locks to be protected if they're still here. I think Byron is likely exposed as a 32-year old with two more years left on his deal. And Evans is playing his way into the need to protect him. So that's 4-5 signed forwards who need protection. So you can't re-sign all of Tatar, Gallagher, Armia, and Danault ahead of the ED date, or else you now have 8-9 guys to protect for 7 spots. If you re-sign them all, then Evans is almost certainly one of the two to get exposed and then the last one becomes a gamble. I'd guess Armia might be next though, and he may be a guy you risk not signing until after the ED.

If Danault is going to cost us that much, then I want to trade him. Pageau should score 30 goals this year. Danault has scored 13 and that ties his career-high. Maybe another team will pay him that much but it shouldn't be us. 

Even the other guys are slightly too pricey for me. This is when I'm going to judge MB. If we are playing the same way next year, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't trade the expiring contracts. Sign the bargains, trade the rest. 

I never worry too much about ED. We can only lose one player. It is what it is. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Drouin gone before his NTC kicks in in 2021/22. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2020-03-01 at 9:28 PM, habs1952 said:

I'd like to see Drouin gone before his NTC kicks in in 2021/22. 

Does he have one? That would be a weird time for it to kick in, I think he only has one season left on the books after 21/22, then he goes full UFA.

0

Share this post


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

Does he have one? That would be a weird time for it to kick in, I think he only has one season left on the books after 21/22, then he goes full UFA.

I don't know if he does but you're not allowed a NTC in the years that you would be an RFA. Think back to PK, he had a NTC kick in in the middle of his contract 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2020-03-01 at 8:45 PM, BigTed3 said:

The problem with UFA's is that the player controls everything. All 4 of our big-name UFA's in 2021 will be able to command the salary/term they want somewhere and they may also be able to move to a team with a better chance at winning the Cup. So it's up to us to either cough up the money or else come up with another reason why they should stay (Do they really love the city? Do they think we're close to winning a Cup?). In Petry's case, he's got young kids who might be in school, so maybe he's less inclined to want to move them. Gallagher and Tatar are likely more mobile, and Danault's kid is too young for school, although he and his wife are both from Quebec.

So I'll come back to what I think the UFA's are going to ask for...

- Gallagher: 7 years at 7.5M. He might even ask for 8, but I think he's settle for 7 and I think he's going to want to be the highest-paid forward on the team. He's been our best goal-scorer and he is consistent, if he can stay healthy. Is he worth paying into his mid-late 30's? That's another question, especially with his style of play being a risk for wearing him down with age, but let's say that's his ask. What's the lowest he goes? Probably 6 years at 7M a year, but I think that's a longshot... someone will give him 7 years. If you tack on a NTC and a shot at the captaincy, maybe that makes it more enticing to him.

- Danault: 6 years at 6.25M. He's easily a better player than JG Pageau, who just signed 6 years at 5M at an older age. He might want 7 or 8 years, but I think as a middle-6 player, he will likely have to settle for 6 years if the salary is over 6M. The best I think he'd settle for is 6 years at 5.5M.

- Tatar: 6 years at 6.75M. Again, I think he's going to want more than Drouin. I think he's going to want a long-term deal, given it's probably his last big contract. He might be looking for 7M a year, but I think this would be a compromise for him. I think the lowest he would go would be 5 years at 6M.

- Petry: 5 years at 7.5M. I think he might be more willing to go a bit shorter than the others, given his age, but he'll still want more years than the optimal contract for the Habs, which would probably be 3 years. When you pro-rate everything for the cap increase, he deserves more money than Weber, so I think we're looking at something over 7M. The lowest I think he goes is 4 years, 7M.

If you tack on Domi, I think he'll be looking for 6.5M+ for 6 years or else at least 5M on a 2 or 3 year deal. Then add on Suzuki and Kotkaniemi needing renewals, the former of whom looks like he's heading towards an 8-year pact and the latter towards a bridge deal. Bottom line is that it's going to be near-impossible to keep everyone, unless you trade Weber or Price or both. I don't think you can afford the 4 UFA's AND Domi AND Suzuki all on bigger deals on top of what you're already giving Drouin, Weber, and Price.

Another thing to keep in mind is how this all affects the expansion draft plan. Every UFA you sign before the ED costs you a spot in your ED protection. As it stands right now, Price has to be protected for his NMC and Primeau is exempt. We would have to re-sign Lindgren though (or another vet) to be able to expose someone. On D, you get to protect 3 of Weber, Petry, Fleury, Juulsen, Mete, and Chiarot. Right now, I wouldn't bother protecting Mete or Chiarot. Re-signing Petry likely means you expose Juulsen, which maybe isn't the end of the world unless he comes back strong next year, in which case, it means you expose Fleury. There are decent odds that Seattle claims one of Chiarot, Mete, or Fleury/Juulsen then, and you have guys in the organization to replace them.

Up front, it's trickier. Drouin, Domi, Kotkaniemi, and Lehkonen are almost locks to be protected if they're still here. I think Byron is likely exposed as a 32-year old with two more years left on his deal. And Evans is playing his way into the need to protect him. So that's 4-5 signed forwards who need protection. So you can't re-sign all of Tatar, Gallagher, Armia, and Danault ahead of the ED date, or else you now have 8-9 guys to protect for 7 spots. If you re-sign them all, then Evans is almost certainly one of the two to get exposed and then the last one becomes a gamble. I'd guess Armia might be next though, and he may be a guy you risk not signing until after the ED.

I think we’ll be okay. My guess is Gallagher will get $7x6 (maybe 7.5), Danault $6x6, Domi $6x6. I’d prefer we trade Petry and Tatar, but it’s always a possibility we just run out their contracts and they walk. Either way, I don’t see either of them being here past next season, but I am wrong more often than I am right :P

0

Share this post


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

Does he have one? That would be a weird time for it to kick in, I think he only has one season left on the books after 21/22, then he goes full UFA.

 

38 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I don't know if he does but you're not allowed a NTC in the years that you would be an RFA. Think back to PK, he had a NTC kick in in the middle of his contract 

He does have one - its a very minor one though: a 3 trade no-trade list. So he can list 3 teams he doesnt want to play for.  No idea why he'd do that but maybe he has some aversion to some team or other.  If i was an NHL player id have a NTC so that i didnt have to play in Boston, Philly or TO.  :4224:

0

Share this post


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

 

He does have one - its a very minor one though: a 3 trade no-trade list. So he can list 3 teams he doesnt want to play for.  No idea why he'd do that but maybe he has some aversion to some team or other.  If i was an NHL player id have a NTC so that i didnt have to play in Boston, Philly or TO.  :4224:

Lol interesting. Either way, I don’t think it’s anything to be concerned about, but that’s funny 

0

Share this post


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

 

He does have one - its a very minor one though: a 3 trade no-trade list. So he can list 3 teams he doesnt want to play for.  No idea why he'd do that but maybe he has some aversion to some team or other.  If i was an NHL player id have a NTC so that i didnt have to play in Boston, Philly or TO.  :4224:

I didn't know it was only for 3 teams. I'll speculate he doesn't want to go to California.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, habs1952 said:

I didn't know it was only for 3 teams. I'll speculate he doesn't want to go to California.

My guess,,,,, TO, ruins, and Det. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im thinking Winnipeg, Edmonton and Buffalo. The coldest, small markets

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.