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

Jake Allen


Regis22
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, claremont said:

 

-Failed with Montaya, Niemi, Kinkaid - you get what you pay for - good point on potential value at the trade line and using Primeau 

That’s a very expensive use of the cap to buy a first round draft choice at pick 24 or whatever the blues pick at - steen would be bought out by us as he doesn’t have much value as a player.  If you go by the Winnipeg Steve Mason precedent they threw in a former first rounder in Armia and we gave up a low level low risk prospect of Simon Bourque. 
It might not be out of the question. 
/I just hope we can secure a top LHD and another scorer thru trade (Domi, or others) and use of the other Cap room before this choice is made 

 

I'm all for ending the speculation about the Allen acquisition for being anything but what it was ..he was put on the roster  as a competent puck-moving backup for Price for 1 year . There are 7 teams that currently need a #1 goalie and bunch of UFAs that include Holtby , Crawford , Lehner , Murray ,Markstrom , Greiss  and a couple more . Allen for sure would have been pursued by teams looking for a 1a or 1 b and maybe given up more than a 3rd pick to St Louis for that 1 years worth of grace or  possible extension on his contract ( Pitts and the Avs don't even have 1  goalie signed )...Bergevin beat the traffic with this move . Time to concentrate on shopping Domi and parts for more pressing needs .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

I'm all for ending the speculation about the Allen acquisition for being anything but what it was ..he was put on the roster  as a competent puck-moving backup for Price for 1 year . There are 7 teams that currently need a #1 goalie and bunch of UFAs that include Holtby , Crawford , Lehner , Murray ,Markstrom , Greiss  and a couple more . Allen for sure would have been pursued by teams looking for a 1a or 1 b and maybe given up more than a 3rd pick to St Louis for that 1 years worth of grace or  possible extension on his contract ( Pitts and the Avs don't even have 1  goalie signed )...Bergevin beat the traffic with this move . Time to concentrate on shopping Domi and parts for more pressing needs .

Agreed.  The team is already better. More moves to make before we can call this a successful offseason. Let's smartly spend to the cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, maas_art said:

interesting thoughts by Jamie McLennan on TSN - he suggested that MB may have traded for Allen to then flip him for another asset or as part of a bigger deal down the this off season.  Not sure i buy it but will be interesting to watch. 

Like you, I also don't buy this. MB and the Habs have  about needing a better back-up for Price for a while. I think that's all there is to it.

 

5 hours ago, arpem-can said:

I'm all for ending the speculation about the Allen acquisition for being anything but what it was ..he was put on the roster  as a competent puck-moving backup for Price for 1 year . There are 7 teams that currently need a #1 goalie and bunch of UFAs that include Holtby , Crawford , Lehner , Murray ,Markstrom , Greiss  and a couple more . Allen for sure would have been pursued by teams looking for a 1a or 1 b and maybe given up more than a 3rd pick to St Louis for that 1 years worth of grace or  possible extension on his contract ( Pitts and the Avs don't even have 1  goalie signed )...Bergevin beat the traffic with this move . Time to concentrate on shopping Domi and parts for more pressing needs .

Teams where I would say Allen is clearly better than the existing goalies:

- Buf

- NJ

- Chi

- Cal

- Edm

 

He's maybe a slight upgrade on a few others but probably not worth trading an asset for to upgrade that amount. All of those teams in need of better goaltending are already out of the playoffs, so Stl could have easily traded with one of them too. If there was a better offer, they would have taken it. The first three teams are not likely to be threats next year and are not strong bets to make the playoffs, so they probably had limited interest in adding a goalie on an expiring contract. So to me, that leaves Calgary or Edmonton as potential trade partners for Stl to have dealt Allen. Edmonton already has no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round picks next year, so they wouldn't have had anything better than a 5th to offer. And Calgary has some cap space but also has to completely rebuild their D in the off-season. I just don't believe there were a lot or any teams who were viewing Allen as a trade target to be their #1 goalie and who had the cap space to make that happen. And how many teams are buying a #2 goalie for 4.35M?

I'm all for jumping out and making your trades ahead of the game and I think that was smart of MB. But I'll maintain that he overpaid for the contract he took back when there really wasn't likely to be any competition for acquiring Allen given his role/contract combination. We have the luxury of overpaying on a one-year deal because we have lots of cap space, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have pressed St. Louis for more given how desperate everyone knows they are to clear cap space for Pietrangelo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BigTed3 said:
18 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Like you, I also don't buy this. MB and the Habs have  about needing a better back-up for Price for a while. I think that's all there is to it.

 

Teams where I would say Allen is clearly better than the existing goalies:

- Buf

- NJ

- Chi

- Cal

- Edm

 

He's maybe a slight upgrade on a few others but probably not worth trading an asset for to upgrade that amount. All of those teams in need of better goaltending are already out of the playoffs, so Stl could have easily traded with one of them too. If there was a better offer, they would have taken it. The first three teams are not likely to be threats next year and are not strong bets to make the playoffs, so they probably had limited interest in adding a goalie on an expiring contract. So to me, that leaves Calgary or Edmonton as potential trade partners for Stl to have dealt Allen. Edmonton already has no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round picks next year, so they wouldn't have had anything better than a 5th to offer. And Calgary has some cap space but also has to completely rebuild their D in the off-season. I just don't believe there were a lot or any teams who were viewing Allen as a trade target to be their #1 goalie and who had the cap space to make that happen. And how many teams are buying a #2 goalie for 4.35M?

I'm all for jumping out and making your trades ahead of the game and I think that was smart of MB. But I'll maintain that he overpaid for the contract he took back when there really wasn't likely to be any competition for acquiring Allen given his role/contract combination. We have the luxury of overpaying on a one-year deal because we have lots of cap space, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have pressed St. Louis for more given how desperate everyone knows they are to clear cap space for Pietrangelo.

 

Although I can agree that the list of teams you presented don't have goal tending that could be considered better than Allen they aren't the only teams out of the play-offs that need a goalie now or shortly  after another mini-season ..for example Detroit only has Bernier for 1 more year @ 3 mill ..Boston is out of the play-offs and Rask is a question mark now with Halak on his last year @ $ 2.25 mill ..Sabres only have 1 yr of Hutton @ 2.275 ...NJ has no goalie ( and a ton of room )....Ottawa 1 yr of Nilsson @ $ 2.6 ( and a ton of room ) ....Pitts ..no goalie ....Van.... Markstrom is a UFA ....Caps....Holtby is a UFA  ..a number of these teams could have a platoon system that involved Allen and still fit within their cap system ...that's why I thought Bergevin got ahead of the traffic on the league ....there's no guarantee free Agent goalies will re-sign with their former clubs ..in light of that the Allen acquisition was not in my estimation an over payment for a 1 A/B  guy you get even if it's only for 1 yr. and you have the cap space .He started  44 games last year and is as close to a starter as you can get .  I believed St. Louis wouldn't have made the deal unless Allen's full salary was taken in light of their issues and when the market starts in full bloom soon  think some teams will be inquiring about Mr. Allen ....just a feeling   Other teams as well ( in the NHL's  frozen cap world )  are waiting to negotiate with their own goalie in the off-season so therefore wouldn't  be classified as teams "easy to trade with " or lining up with better offers in hand ...it's a matter of timing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know they are separate deals so its not relevant, but still,  if you conbine & the Allen and Scandella deals, we got:

Jake Allen + 2nd + 4th + 7th

for
 
Scandella + 3rd + 7th


We got the best player (Allen) the better picks and we got Scandella off our blueline (a good thing) :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

Although I can agree that the list of teams you presented don't have goal tending that could be considered better than Allen they aren't the only teams out of the play-offs that need a goalie now or shortly  after another mini-season ..for example Detroit only has Bernier for 1 more year @ 3 mill ..Boston is out of the play-offs and Rask is a question mark now with Halak on his last year @ $ 2.25 mill ..Sabres only have 1 yr of Hutton @ 2.275 ...NJ has no goalie ( and a ton of room )....Ottawa 1 yr of Nilsson @ $ 2.6 ( and a ton of room ) ....Pitts ..no goalie ....Van.... Markstrom is a UFA ....Caps....Holtby is a UFA  ..a number of these teams could have a platoon system that involved Allen and still fit within their cap system ...that's why I thought Bergevin got ahead of the traffic on the league ....there's no guarantee free Agent goalies will re-sign with their former clubs ..in light of that the Allen acquisition was not in my estimation an over payment for a 1 A/B  guy you get even if it's only for 1 yr. and you have the cap space .He started  44 games last year and is as close to a starter as you can get .  I believed St. Louis wouldn't have made the deal unless Allen's full salary was taken in light of their issues and when the market starts in full bloom soon  think some teams will be inquiring about Mr. Allen ....just a feeling   Other teams as well ( in the NHL's  frozen cap world )  are waiting to negotiate with their own goalie in the off-season so therefore wouldn't  be classified as teams "easy to trade with " or lining up with better offers in hand ...it's a matter of timing 

Like I said, I agree with you that it was smart for MB to get his deals done quickly. If you know who you want, you go out and make your move, and I like that. Again though, not sure I agree with some of the teams on your list... I think Washington will be happy to use Samsonov and Vancouver has already seemingly felt comfortable moving forward with Demko. Pittsburgh has both Murray and Jarry, and both of those guys may be starters somewhere next year (I'd guess Pittsburgh is happy with Jarry as their starter and wouldn't want to spend 4.35M on Allen anyways). And if Boston doesn't start Rask next year, which is quite possible, they could well use him as a trade chip to swap goalies with another team.

I'm not saying there aren't other suitors outside of the 5 I listed, just that those other teams aren't clearly teams where Allen is their best option. And plenty of teams now have shown a willingness to turn the goal over to a younger or less experienced player, like Demko with Vancouver and Columbus with Korpisalo and Merzlikins and St. Louis with Binnington and Philly with Hart and Georgiev in NY. And next year, Markstrom and Howard and Murray and Greiss and Lehner and Holtby are all going to be playing somewhere, so there are other options as starters out there that a team could acquire for less than a 3rd round pick potentially.

As I've said, I'm not disappointed by the move in isolation. Allen is a good goalie, he's the best back-up we've had in a while, and his contract is not terrible given our cap space for the one year he has left on his deal. But short of a surprise trade of Carey Price, I don't see Allen returning after next season AND there's a risk the season doesn't ever get played or finished AND St. Louis clearly had their backs against the wall with their cap situation and needing to clear space for Pietrangelo. All that adds up to our doing them more of a favor than they did us, so I don't think MB did enough to exploit that. He could have also looked at Markstrom, Khudobin, Lehner, Howard, Greiss, Talbot, etc. as a back-up option without giving up trade capital, so while I like Allen better than any of those guys, MB wasn't necessarily forced to give in to St. Louis' demands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

I know they are separate deals so its not relevant, but still,  if you conbine & the Allen and Scandella deals, we got:

Jake Allen + 2nd + 4th + 7th

for
 
Scandella + 3rd + 7th


We got the best player (Allen) the better picks and we got Scandella off our blueline (a good thing) :P 

 St Louis as well signs Scandella for  $13 ,000,000 over 4 years and now have cap issues ..that surprised me ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

I know they are separate deals so its not relevant, but still,  if you conbine & the Allen and Scandella deals, we got:

Jake Allen + 2nd + 4th + 7th

for
 
Scandella + 3rd + 7th


We got the best player (Allen) the better picks and we got Scandella off our blueline (a good thing) :P 

we gave Buffalo the 4th ( 2020 ) to get Scandella 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The way the goalie market is shaping up I am begging to think we have over paid for a back up.  This we could have gotten a good backup at half the cost in FA as well as kept the pick.

 

Notable FA goalies

Crawford, King Henrik, Anderson, Subban, Hotlby, Griess, Talbot, Khudobin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

The way the goalie market is shaping up I am begging to think we have over paid for a back up.  This we could have gotten a good backup at half the cost in FA as well as kept the pick.

 

Notable FA goalies

Crawford, King Henrik, Anderson, Subban, Hotlby, Griess, Talbot, Khudobin

 

I'd agree we probably paid too much, especially considering the value to StL of freeing up cap space but of your list I'd say the only one that fits is Crawford and Talbot. Don't see King Henrik, Holtby, Greiss, or Khudobin as willing to be Price's backup on 1 year deals. And i won't touch Anderson or Subban

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 26NCounting said:

The way the goalie market is shaping up I am begging to think we have over paid for a back up.  This we could have gotten a good backup at half the cost in FA as well as kept the pick.

 

Notable FA goalies

Crawford, King Henrik, Anderson, Subban, Hotlby, Griess, Talbot, Khudobin

 

I think this was expected but remember one key part: Term. 

You likely could have gotten one of those guys for less $$ but do you think any will sign for less than 2 years?  Its possible but its a risk. I think MB has messed up before with backups and didnt want to run that risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 26NCounting said:

WTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We can't sign Gally but we can over pay for a back up!!!!  I really liked MB's moves up to this point.  The only saving grace is he might get exposed and drafted by the Seattle Crackheads

no one said we can't sign gally, I think we're just letting it playout 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd. Unexpected.

I just assumed Jake Allen would be here for one year and then we'd look to move Primeau into the back-up role. The money seems fair for a goaltender of his quality. I'm just surprised. Especially since the cap probably remains stagnant for a few seasons.

Also, should we not have waited to see him play for us before extending him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very very odd.

The whole time people have been saying "why trade for him, there are good goalies available (cheaper) UFA" and I kept saying "yes but they will all want term"  Now we've given Allen term too... so, what was the point? I thought the whole idea was to sign him for 1 year and then allow Primeau to move up. 

This is really quite baffling. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a bad contract in general, albeit more than you would want to pay for a back-up when your starter is making 10.5M a year. It does leave a big question mark as to when Primeau gets a chance to play and I think that likely closes the door on Lindgren/McNiven to any degree. There are a few possibilities for how this plays out:

1. Most likely scenario is that Allen is expose in the ED. He could be a reasonable option for Seattle as a recent starter on a reasonable contract, so he could get claimed. If that's the case, Habs move on to Primeau as back-up behind Carey and they've saved themselves the trouble of losing a Fleury, Juulsen, Mete, Lehkonen, Armia, or whoever else.

2. Second possibility is that he is exposed in the ED but goes unclaimed. In this case, Habs could use Allen as back-up for another year (or two) or look at trading him at some point. Plenty of teams may have injuries or lose a goalie in the ED or so on, and Allen as a tandem #1 could be a reasonable option for them, again with a reasonably friendly contract if you plan on using him as a tandem #1 or replacement #1. In this case, he would still bring value back to us. Keeping him for the next 3 years, though, really hinders the ability to develop Primeau into a capable future #1, so you likely want to trade Allen right after the ED or in the first year after it.

3. Third possibility is perhaps the most interesting and that is keeping Allen and trading Price. We have to remember that McNiven is signed through this year and will be an RFA next summer, meaning all we have to do is submit a qualifying offer to him and becomes eligible to be the exposed goalie. Primeau doesn't require protection. So if the Habs deal Price, they can still be assured of having Allen for the short term and Primeau as a long-term solution and they risk losing neither. Is there a drop-off in play level compared to Price in the short term? Absolutely. But what's better for the team? Allen/Primeau for a combined 4M or Price/Allen for a combined 14M? If you can get a good return on Price and spend that 10M elsewhere to bolster your roster, maybe you're better off that way. Bergevin will never publicly tell us he's open to trading Price (and Carey would have to agree to waive his NMC), but Carey to Colorado for Byram, a 1st, and more has always made sense to me as a fit for both teams and for the player. Carey to Vancouver or Seattle also maybe makes sense for those teams and the player but less so for us in terms of the return. Maybe even Carey to Edmonton could make some sense, and I could see all four of those locations perhaps being appealing to him for being closer to home or giving him a chance at a Cup sooner. So I know it won't be something the Habs discuss, but if the rumors of Gallagher and Danault both not being happy with their negotiation status are true, maybe Bergevin would finally consider moving out some vets (Gallagher, Danault, Tatar, Price, Weber) after this year and not re-building but bringing in younger NHL players to build around Suzuki and Primeau and Romanov and Norlinder and Kotkaniemi and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

1. Most likely scenario is that Allen is expose in the ED. He could be a reasonable option for Seattle as a recent starter on a reasonable contract, so he could get claimed. If that's the case, Habs move on to Primeau as back-up behind Carey and they've saved themselves the trouble of losing a Fleury, Juulsen, Mete, Lehkonen, Armia, or whoever else.

2. Second possibility is that he is exposed in the ED but goes unclaimed. In this case, Habs could use Allen as back-up for another year (or two) or look at trading him at some point. Plenty of teams may have injuries or lose a goalie in the ED or so on, and Allen as a tandem #1 could be a reasonable option for them, again with a reasonably friendly contract if you plan on using him as a tandem #1 or replacement #1. In this case, he would still bring value back to us. Keeping him for the next 3 years, though, really hinders the ability to develop Primeau into a capable future #1, so you likely want to trade Allen right after the ED or in the first year after it.

3. Third possibility is perhaps the most interesting and that is keeping Allen and trading Price. We have to remember that McNiven is signed through this year and will be an RFA next summer, meaning all we have to do is submit a qualifying offer to him and becomes eligible to be the exposed goalie. Primeau doesn't require protection. So if the Habs deal Price, they can still be assured of having Allen for the short term and Primeau as a long-term solution and they risk losing neither. Is there a drop-off in play level compared to Price in the short term? Absolutely. But what's better for the team? Allen/Primeau for a combined 4M or Price/Allen for a combined 14M? If you can get a good return on Price and spend that 10M elsewhere to bolster your roster, maybe you're better off that way. Bergevin will never publicly tell us he's open to trading Price (and Carey would have to agree to waive his NMC), but Carey to Colorado for Byram, a 1st, and more has always made sense to me as a fit for both teams and for the player. Carey to Vancouver or Seattle also maybe makes sense for those teams and the player but less so for us in terms of the return. Maybe even Carey to Edmonton could make some sense, and I could see all four of those locations perhaps being appealing to him for being closer to home or giving him a chance at a Cup sooner. So I know it won't be something the Habs discuss, but if the rumors of Gallagher and Danault both not being happy with their negotiation status are true, maybe Bergevin would finally consider moving out some vets (Gallagher, Danault, Tatar, Price, Weber) after this year and not re-building but bringing in younger NHL players to build around Suzuki and Primeau and Romanov and Norlinder and Kotkaniemi and so on.

Yeah option 1/2 are the only ones that make this signing make sense to me.  I know we could have qualified McNiven (who will be RFA) and then exposed him but you have to figure the chances of the Kraken taking him would be very slim.  By exposing Allen, we offer a potentially interesting option. There probably wont be many (if any) better available goalies exposed.   Still seems odd to me.  

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...