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

Montreal doesnt match Hurricanes Offer Sheet to KK


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

I think they are saying there's a chance he will, there's a chance he wont.  They'd be willing to take that chance at 2 or 3 or maybe even 4m. But not at 6.1

I understand what you're saying about term but then what? he underperforms & you let him walk?  I just think they felt this (letting him go, turning the assets into a quality mid-tier player etc) was the safer play.  I dont fault them for taking the safer route - especially as I think it will make us better in the short term & MB still seems to think this team (rightly or wrongly) can compete for the cup again. 

But when you get into the POS, anything can happen. :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ramcharger440 said:

For me the problem with the 6.1 is the message it sends to the other players on the team and just the fact that it is a stupid amount of money for that player at that stage of his career with what he has done so far, we have kids to sign in the near future perhaps even before they become due a move may be made to lock them up. I myself would rather get the 4 mil guy that we can count on rather than pay 6 mil for a player who may not even want to be here and get a poor season out of him which would waste another year of the rest of the players contracts. We know we are going to get a good year out of Dvorak we may or may not have one with KK for more money, and if what he is saying about how he feels he was developed is true he would perhaps have wanted to move on anyways.

You hit the nail on the head with your last point and that was really the one major concern I had, which is what if Kotkaniemi wanted out. If a guy doesn't want to be here, feels mistreated by the coaches, saw his best friend on the team traded, etc. then maybe there wasn't anything salvageable. Past that though, I was fine with the rest. I don't think the 6.1M sends much of a message to anyone because it wasn't a Bergevin-initiated contract. Suzuki's worth more already anyways, but a guy like Evans or Poehling can't really go and demand 6M on their next contracts on account of Carolina giving that to JK. Plus, you look at what MB gave to Edmundson and Savard as deals and he wasn't offering them the same mistaken deal he gave Karl Alzner. I think MB has been good at treating players individually and right or wrong, not paying them more than he thought they were worth.

9 hours ago, maas_art said:

I think they are saying there's a chance he will, there's a chance he wont.  They'd be willing to take that chance at 2 or 3 or maybe even 4m. But not at 6.1

I understand what you're saying about term but then what? he underperforms & you let him walk?  I just think they felt this (letting him go, turning the assets into a quality mid-tier player etc) was the safer play.  I dont fault them for taking the safer route - especially as I think it will make us better in the short term & MB still seems to think this team (rightly or wrongly) can compete for the cup again. 

And this is a difference in mentality that I have with MB. He has always chosen to go the safe route, for the most part. He's afraid to gamble, he's afraid to take risks on players and prefers to take the more known entity but with less upside. That's how we ended up with Weber over Subban or Drouin over Sergachev and why we continually go after players like Alzner, Schlemko, Chiarot, Edmundson, Perry, Staal, Ott, King, and so on instead of playing younger guys like Beaulieu, Galchenyuk, Andrighetto, Romanov, etc. There has forever been a tendency here to try to avoid making a blunder that gets you dragged through the mud in the media, and this team would rather go down on the backs of mediocre veterans than take a shot with a less proven youngster and be criticized for their not being ready or for the team having made an error in judgment.

If David Savard flops here, MB will say "but he was good elsewhere and he just won a Cup" and "other teams also thought he was good" and he'll paint it as not being his fault that the guy fell off a cliff, the way it happened with Alzner or Streit or Semin or Kaberle. But if he throws Romanov or Norlinder or Brook into the top 4 and that guy flops, then everyone piles on about how that never should have happened in the first place and how we rushed the kid's development and how it was the Habs' fault. Just look at the backlash about Kotkaniemi now. There are all sorts of stories in the media and on message boards like this about how we shouldn't have brought him in as an 18 year-old and how he wasn't ready and so on. The same stories were written when Latendresse's play went south or about Victor Mete or Alex Galchenyuk. But I didn't see anyone complaining about Kotkaniemi when he played well at 18. I didn't see too many stories about how Caufield should have stayed in Laval and sat in the pressbox there for 20 games so he could watch how professionals play hockey before getting a spin on the ice. I didn't see too many fans complaining when PK Subban got called up to play in the playoffs as a rookie and didn't look out of place at all. And for every player we bring in at 18 or 20, there are your Louis Leblanc's and Jacob de la Rose's and Zach Fucale's and David Fischer's who just putter around in the minors and never amount to anything.

What I'd like to see from the Habs is their identifying guys that they think will be core players and locking them up to deals before they hit their prime. Maybe they decided that wasn't Kotkaniemi. But if you think it's Caufield or Norlinder or Primeau or Ylonen or whoever else, use your gut about those players and get them inked to longer-term deals at a discount. Offer Caufield 8 years at 5.5M. If Ylonen can give you one good year and you think he's capable of being in the show, give him 6 years at 3.5M. If you think Norlinder can be a star, give him 4M on a long-term deal after he's been around for a year or two. We got long-term discount deals with guys like Pacioretty and Gallagher and those were great value. In a cap world, you need to have young guys playing key roles on entry level deals and you need to have a core that you drafted and developed and locked up long-term to reasonable contracts. You can't be reaching out to sign UFA's for 10M a season and you can't be filling key spots in your line-up with free agents either. IMO, you need to have your top two centers, a goal scorer, and two 23+ minute puck-moving D men as a core locked up. I can see Suzuki in that group and Caufield and maybe Norlinder or Guhle or Harris or Romanov down the line. But I'd rather have taken a gamble on a player like Kotkaniemi developing now that he was finally going to get a shot at 2C ice time rather than going after the known commodity in Dvorak but who probably isn't a 2C on a Cup winning team unless you insulate him with a 3C who is just as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

What I'd like to see from the Habs is their identifying guys that they think will be core players and locking them up to deals before they hit their prime. Maybe they decided that wasn't Kotkaniemi. But if you think it's Caufield or Norlinder or Primeau or Ylonen or whoever else, use your gut about those players and get them inked to longer-term deals at a discount. Offer Caufield 8 years at 5.5M. If Ylonen can give you one good year and you think he's capable of being in the show, give him 6 years at 3.5M. If you think Norlinder can be a star, give him 4M on a long-term deal after he's been around for a year or two. We got long-term discount deals with guys like Pacioretty and Gallagher and those were great value. In a cap world, you need to have young guys playing key roles on entry level deals and you need to have a core that you drafted and developed and locked up long-term to reasonable contracts. You can't be reaching out to sign UFA's for 10M a season and you can't be filling key spots in your line-up with free agents either. IMO, you need to have your top two centers, a goal scorer, and two 23+ minute puck-moving D men as a core locked up. I can see Suzuki in that group and Caufield and maybe Norlinder or Guhle or Harris or Romanov down the line. But I'd rather have taken a gamble on a player like Kotkaniemi developing now that he was finally going to get a shot at 2C ice time rather than going after the known commodity in Dvorak but who probably isn't a 2C on a Cup winning team unless you insulate him with a 3C who is just as good.

Montreal isn't very good at identifying top end talent . Look at all the past prospects ' Locking up guys like Alex G, Scherback ,etc would have been a  mistake. Suzuki I can see . He has shown steady improvement . But Caulfield, Norlinder, Guhle, Ylonen , Romanov etc need to play a couple years and  prove that the can play in the big league before  commiting long term . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Regis22 said:

Montreal isn't very good at identifying top end talent . Look at all the past prospects ' Locking up guys like Alex G, Scherback ,etc would have been a  mistake. Suzuki I can see . He has shown steady improvement . But Caulfield, Norlinder, Guhle, Ylonen , Primeau, Romanov etc need to play a couple years and  prove that the can play in the big league before  commiting long term . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

In a cap world, you need to have young guys playing key roles on entry level deals and you need to have a core that you drafted and developed and locked up long-term to reasonable contracts. You can't be reaching out to sign UFA's for 10M a season and you can't be filling key spots in your line-up with free agents

Aside from a ridiculous 1 year contract OS by Carolina I think MB has done just that . The free agent forwards he signed are not in the $10 million a season range , they are 1/2 that and will allow Montreal to be able to sign guys like Caufield and Suzuki and Romanov down the road.  I disagree with you on 8 year deals and 6 year deals when the players RFA rights are still owned by the club and they are still able to be signed to bridge deals . In a perfect world this has enabled teams like  Montreal to assemble a quality group of forwards with some term attached only because the room is there ( Weber's money aside) . Perhaps even the beginning of the season the RFA contracts  are expiring might be the time to sign them to longer term ( 3-4 yrs ala Suzuki ) because you can do that without fear of another  OS . I can see this happening with Suzuki .The younger guys in the system that look like they might  be solid NHLers like Caufield,  Norlinder , Primeau  or Poehling etc will be treated the same way . I like the way Bergevin has been handling Montreal's cap in the last 2 years . I doubt that going forward rogue GMs will be Offer Sheeting ridiculous spite -filled contracts for one year like Carolina . Almost all teams stick to the same template as Bergevin in managing their cap and over time bringing up their draftees with reasonable contracts until they start to show signs of flourishing . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight.....  MTL let KK walk for a ridiculous 6.1 mil contract for a 20 point player who was brutal on face offs and played a very soft defensive game in return they get a 2022 1st and 3rd round pick.  Then they move a first and 2nd for a 4.5 mil center who played on a horrible team with less than legit line mates, who put up more points, has a good face off record and plays both ends of the ice well.  But yet people are complaining???  Are we serious???  This is an absolute fantastic move,  KK didn't want to be here it was a poor draft choice at the time.  He will never be a great center and we will need all the cap space we have available to re sign core players down the road.

 

While I really don't like MB as a GM I will say this was a great move.  You can't toss away the farm to sign a player on potential

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Regis22 said:

Montreal isn't very good at identifying top end talent . Look at all the past prospects ' Locking up guys like Alex G, Scherback ,etc would have been a  mistake. Suzuki I can see . He has shown steady improvement . But Caulfield, Norlinder, Guhle, Ylonen , Romanov etc need to play a couple years and  prove that the can play in the big league before  commiting long term . 

If Caufield scores 35 goals in a season, his next contract will be 2-3M more expensive than what it would have been beforehand.

If Norlinder ends up being the PP quarterback and puts up 45 points, he'll get Dougie Hamilton money.

Therein is the issue... if you wait til a guy has proven he can do it, it's too late. The guy has established value. What you want/need to do is take a gamble on a player or two. Guess that they will have what it takes and pay them more money than they would ordinarily get now but in exchange for longer security. Be confident in your assessments of who has talent. If you think Caufield or Poehling or Ylonen or Norlinder is the real deal, give them 1-2 years to show they can play in the NHL but sign them long-term before they explode and up their value too much. That's how you get 8M talent playing for you at 5M. It's what we did with Pacioretty and Gallagher and that worked well. Look at what Ottawa is doing locking up their young core players. I like that strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, arpem-can said:

Aside from a ridiculous 1 year contract OS by Carolina I think MB has done just that . The free agent forwards he signed are not in the $10 million a season range , they are 1/2 that and will allow Montreal to be able to sign guys like Caufield and Suzuki and Romanov down the road.  I disagree with you on 8 year deals and 6 year deals when the players RFA rights are still owned by the club and they are still able to be signed to bridge deals . In a perfect world this has enabled teams like  Montreal to assemble a quality group of forwards with some term attached only because the room is there ( Weber's money aside) . Perhaps even the beginning of the season the RFA contracts  are expiring might be the time to sign them to longer term ( 3-4 yrs ala Suzuki ) because you can do that without fear of another  OS . I can see this happening with Suzuki .The younger guys in the system that look like they might  be solid NHLers like Caufield,  Norlinder , Primeau  or Poehling etc will be treated the same way . I like the way Bergevin has been handling Montreal's cap in the last 2 years . I doubt that going forward rogue GMs will be Offer Sheeting ridiculous spite -filled contracts for one year like Carolina . Almost all teams stick to the same template as Bergevin in managing their cap and over time bringing up their draftees with reasonable contracts until they start to show signs of flourishing . 

But Edmundson, Chiarot, Toffoli, Anderson, Drouin, and so on are really not the core that drives this team. You're giving money and term here to guys who can be important supporting cast players but most of these guys can be replaced and they're not playing important positions. Subban ended up getting 9M when we might have been able to sign him two years earlier to a cheaper long-term deal. Price is getting north of 10M. I'd rather have core guys locked up here at 5-7M than paying them close to 10M. Who are our core guys going forward? Suzuki is one. Caufield may be another. Norlinder maybe down the line if he fulfills his top-end potential. Primeau one day? Who are the guys who are going to carry the team and be elite talent at their positions?

I'm not suggesting we give every young player big money. I'm saying we should pick a guy or two guys or three guys that we see as the key future pieces here. If we give them 7-8 year deals, I couldn't care what happens to them after that. Look at Danault or Gallagher now. Are these guys we really want to be signing long-term at age 28 or 29 or 30? I'd have been fine if we had chosen not to pay Gallagher going forward and traded him instead. I'd personally rather have these guys locked up to cost-controlled long-term deals between the ages of 21-28/29 and then trade them at that age at need be for a 1st rounder or prospect then bridge them through their mid-20's and sign them to 6-7 year deals when they're 27. The whole game is getting guys at their peak and not keeping them around too far into their decline. This is why long-term UFA deals almost never work out. Most of those guys are 27-30 when they're signing those massive 5-7 year deals and then people wonder why they don't live up to them and fall off a cliff at age 32. It's a young man's game and if I were GM, I'd be locking up my core through their mid-20's not worrying about how I'll keep them around into their 30's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

 Who are our core guys going forward? Suzuki is one. Caufield may be another. Norlinder maybe down the line if he fulfills his top-end potential. Primeau one day? Who are the guys who are going to carry the team and be elite talent at their positions?

 

Suzuki

Maybe be Caufield

No one else IMO . Im not paying big money long term to Primeau . He may not be an NHL goalie . 

Norlinder, Guhle, Ylonen , Primeau, Romanov may not even be elite talent 

Then again Im not a betting man or a good  judge of NHL prospects, I thought Cale Fleury was OK , Montreal obviously saw otherwise

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

If Caufield scores 35 goals in a season, his next contract will be 2-3M more expensive than what it would have been beforehand.

If Norlinder ends up being the PP quarterback and puts up 45 points, he'll get Dougie Hamilton money.

Therein is the issue... if you wait til a guy has proven he can do it, it's too late. The guy has established value. What you want/need to do is take a gamble on a player or two. Guess that they will have what it takes and pay them more money than they would ordinarily get now but in exchange for longer security. Be confident in your assessments of who has talent. If you think Caufield or Poehling or Ylonen or Norlinder is the real deal, give them 1-2 years to show they can play in the NHL but sign them long-term before they explode and up their value too much. That's how you get 8M talent playing for you at 5M. It's what we did with Pacioretty and Gallagher and that worked well. Look at what Ottawa is doing locking up their young core players. I like that strategy.

I concur on that strategy and a GM does have to take risks - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but that should be better than waiting too long, being cheap, and risking UFA or OS. It is a question of degree as you need overlaps of term (not key players expiring at the same time), and only doing it with 2-4 players.  You have to have a reasonable body of work and faith in your scouts or coaching evaluations. I suspect Suzuki and Caufield would be our top 2 to try to lock in like that.  Colorado seems to have done that successfully with MacKinnon and Girard as examples of success. MB has lost so far on his gamble with Drouin as he locked him up for 6 years at $5.5M when the body of work really was not there.

As a GM, I would be very careful on term - You would have to be a very special core player to command 6 years in my books. I believe Edmonton will be very sorry for locking up a player like Hyman for 7 years and to think they wanted to do 8 but Dubas screwed them on releasing him earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 26NCounting said:

So let me get this straight.....  MTL let KK walk for a ridiculous 6.1 mil contract for a 20 point player who was brutal on face offs and played a very soft defensive game in return they get a 2022 1st and 3rd round pick.  Then they move a first and 2nd for a 4.5 mil center who played on a horrible team with less than legit line mates, who put up more points, has a good face off record and plays both ends of the ice well.  But yet people are complaining???  Are we serious???  This is an absolute fantastic move,  KK didn't want to be here it was a poor draft choice at the time.  He will never be a great center and we will need all the cap space we have available to re sign core players down the road.

 

While I really don't like MB as a GM I will say this was a great move.  You can't toss away the farm to sign a player on potential

Question, have you looked at the stats line for both players? Dvorak put up 31 points last season but was -11 that literally means that when Dvorak was on the ice other teams had scored 42 goals. KK had 20 points and was -1 again that means with KK on the other team scored 21 goals. Many compare PPG where Dvorak is a 0.55 and KK was a 0.36 that is all well and good but Dvorak gave up 0.75 ppg and KK gave up 0.38 ppg. tell me which would you rather have from a defensive standpoint a player giving up 0.38 ppg or the one giving up 0.75 ppg? You also claim that KK was horrible on the faceoff but his FO% was 47.9% compared to Suzuki's whose was 44.0, what must you think of Suzuki?! You also claim that Dvorak had less "legit line mates" KK's this year were primarily Byron (16), Lehkonen (13), Armia (14), Perry (21) and Anderson (24). Dvorak had Kessel (43), Keller (35), Crouse (13) and Fischer (11), I would say Dvorak had the better linemates most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Regis22 said:

Suzuki

Maybe be Caufield

No one else IMO . Im not paying big money long term to Primeau . He may not be an NHL goalie . 

Norlinder, Guhle, Ylonen , Primeau, Romanov may not even be elite talent 

Then again Im not a betting man or a good  judge of NHL prospects, I thought Cale Fleury was OK , Montreal obviously saw otherwise

I think BT's point is you give them the extension once you've confident but before they have "proven" with a doubt they are worth it.  Sure there's some risk but there's risk both ways.

So right now you'd lock up Suzuki because at worst he's a 60 point 2 way centre. You could probably safely lock up Caufield  - i know its a small sample size but he's proven he can score at every level & looked absolutely elite in the playoffs - not just as a scorer.

I wouldnt lock up any of the other guys, yet. But maybe after this year, yes - who knows.  Its finding that sweet spot of "ok we're confident they'll at worst be_____ but could hopefully be _____" 

Of course the player has to sign it too.  Not all of them will, preferring to take shorter contracts and "bet on themselves" to make more of an impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, maas_art said:

I think BT's point is you give them the extension once you've confident but before they have "proven" with a doubt they are worth it.  Sure there's some risk but there's risk both ways.

So right now you'd lock up Suzuki because at worst he's a 60 point 2 way centre. You could probably safely lock up Caufield  - i know its a small sample size but he's proven he can score at every level & looked absolutely elite in the playoffs - not just as a scorer.

I wouldnt lock up any of the other guys, yet. But maybe after this year, yes - who knows.  Its finding that sweet spot of "ok we're confident they'll at worst be_____ but could hopefully be _____" 

Of course the player has to sign it too.  Not all of them will, preferring to take shorter contracts and "bet on themselves" to make more of an impact. 

This is exactly what should be done, and in the case of KK they should have gone to him before the start of last season and said look we want to see what you can do so we will give you a 3 year deal at 2-2.5 mil and see where we go after that. Maybe they did but most likely they didn't. Waiting until after the season KK had the I was a key player in the playoffs defense to ask for more (not saying he should have gotten more). Just saying that they need to be proactive with their players not reactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

This is exactly what should be done, and in the case of KK they should have gone to him before the start of last season and said look we want to see what you can do so we will give you a 3 year deal at 2-2.5 mil and see where we go after that. Maybe they did but most likely they didn't. Waiting until after the season KK had the I was a key player in the playoffs defense to ask for more (not saying he should have gotten more). Just saying that they need to be proactive with their players not reactive.

  Who really knows what goes on behind the scenes ? maybe Montreal did approach him ....Carolina has stated they "coveted " KK since draft day ...maybe KKs agent told him to hold off because something better was coming ( wink wink ) ...on the other hand he scored 5 regular goals last year ....as for a previous posted comment about Dvorak and his +/- compared to KK I just have to say Montreal system is to have all players on the ice defensively responsible as a unit ...I didn't see that in the desert ...better line mates ?...ok  ...better defensive players on his line like Armia , Lehtonen , Byron...all PKs  ...umm likely not ,,,Dvorak had quite a few points on the PP as well ...I want to see the numbers after a year in Montreal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Question, have you looked at the stats line for both players? Dvorak put up 31 points last season but was -11 that literally means that when Dvorak was on the ice other teams had scored 42 goals. KK had 20 points and was -1 again that means with KK on the other team scored 21 goals. Many compare PPG where Dvorak is a 0.55 and KK was a 0.36 that is all well and good but Dvorak gave up 0.75 ppg and KK gave up 0.38 ppg. tell me which would you rather have from a defensive standpoint a player giving up 0.38 ppg or the one giving up 0.75 ppg? You also claim that KK was horrible on the faceoff but his FO% was 47.9% compared to Suzuki's whose was 44.0, what must you think of Suzuki?! You also claim that Dvorak had less "legit line mates" KK's this year were primarily Byron (16), Lehkonen (13), Armia (14), Perry (21) and Anderson (24). Dvorak had Kessel (43), Keller (35), Crouse (13) and Fischer (11), I would say Dvorak had the better linemates most of the time.

Have you actually looked at the team Dvorak played on??  How can anyone have good or decent numbers on that shit team??

 

I completely get what your say but KK is not worth 6.1 mil any way shape or form.  Personally I lean more towards he was an average C at best,  and I'm not jumping the gun and saying Dvorak will be the super star center for MTL but he will be a better fit than KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, claremont said:

I concur on that strategy and a GM does have to take risks - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but that should be better than waiting too long, being cheap, and risking UFA or OS. It is a question of degree as you need overlaps of term (not key players expiring at the same time), and only doing it with 2-4 players.  You have to have a reasonable body of work and faith in your scouts or coaching evaluations. I suspect Suzuki and Caufield would be our top 2 to try to lock in like that.  Colorado seems to have done that successfully with MacKinnon and Girard as examples of success. MB has lost so far on his gamble with Drouin as he locked him up for 6 years at $5.5M when the body of work really was not there.

As a GM, I would be very careful on term - You would have to be a very special core player to command 6 years in my books. I believe Edmonton will be very sorry for locking up a player like Hyman for 7 years and to think they wanted to do 8 but Dubas screwed them on releasing him earlier. 

Yes, Colorado is another example of a team that chose a couple of guys to lock up at a younger age with Mackinnon and Girard. Or look at Florida with Huberdeau. At the time they signed him, he had had seasons of 9, 15, 20, and 10 goals. They gave him 6 years at 5.9M and he put up 27, 30, 23 (in 69 games), and 20 (in 55 games) in his 4 years since. He's well over a point per game. If they had given him two more years and then aimed to re-sign him, he would have cost them 8M a year. They got Barkov at 6 years 5.9M as well and they did that before he became elite. Yes, the counter-point is that he'll be a UFA after this year, but Florida just had 6 years of great return on those contracts and if those two players want to take their services elsewhere at age 28 or 30 for 10M a year, well I'd rather have been the team that got them through their 20's for 5.9M than the next idiots who give them ages 28-35 at 10M per season. As I said, identify your core and the guys you think will be elite and gamble on them.

As far as Drouin goes, I don't think the contract was a huge mistake. To some degree, MB did here what Florida did with Barkov and Huberdeau, but at the time, MB also thought he would be a 1C. So he paid him 5.5M. Is he worth it now? Maybe not. But he's still a 2nd line player that you're paying 5.5M to. Not the end of the world. We signed Anderson for 5.5M, we signed Hoffman for 4.5M, we signed Toffoli for 4.25M. So you're paying Drouin something in the same ballpark for his prime years and if you hit your gamble, you could have had an 80-point player for cheap. If you didn't hit, you still got a 40-50 point player at a slight overpayment. Drouin's contract is not the one that's hurting us. What's been worse? Price at 10.5M taking him deep into his 30's. Weber at over 7M well into his 30's. Maybe now Petry and Gallagher as their contracts go on. I'll reiterate that the long-term deals you give 20-23 year-olds are much less likely to hurt you than the ones you give 27-31 year-olds and I'd rather gamble on the guys with the possibility of playing better than the ones who you're paying for the past and who you know will decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

Have you actually looked at the team Dvorak played on??  How can anyone have good or decent numbers on that shit team??

 

I completely get what your say but KK is not worth 6.1 mil any way shape or form.  Personally I lean more towards he was an average C at best,  and I'm not jumping the gun and saying Dvorak will be the super star center for MTL but he will be a better fit than KK

I wasn't saying KK deserved the 6.1 Mil cause I don't think he did. I was just saying that head to head the gap isn't as big as what is being pushed. KK did have more to prove but Dvorak hasn't proven to be much more either. At least he is consistent though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

  Who really knows what goes on behind the scenes ? maybe Montreal did approach him ....Carolina has stated they "coveted " KK since draft day ...maybe KKs agent told him to hold off because something better was coming ( wink wink ) ...on the other hand he scored 5 regular goals last year ....as for a previous posted comment about Dvorak and his +/- compared to KK I just have to say Montreal system is to have all players on the ice defensively responsible as a unit ...I didn't see that in the desert ...better line mates ?...ok  ...better defensive players on his line like Armia , Lehtonen , Byron...all PKs  ...umm likely not ,,,Dvorak had quite a few points on the PP as well ...I want to see the numbers after a year in Montreal

Exactly.  Its 100% speculation because we know almost none of the facts.  

imho Dvorak will thrive on this roster.  I dont think he'll be a 90 point player or something crazy but 55+ is not out of the question. 

34 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

I completely get what your say but KK is not worth 6.1 mil any way shape or form.  Personally I lean more towards he was an average C at best,  and I'm not jumping the gun and saying Dvorak will be the super star center for MTL but he will be a better fit than KK

Agree. I dont think anyone believes JK was worth $6m.  heck if he had signed a $3m bridge (apparently what he wanted) he would have been overpaid.   When the OS came in, TSN asked 5 GMs for a number on what JK was worth. Two were just under $2m per and the other 3 were all under $2.5m

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Question, have you looked at the stats line for both players? Dvorak put up 31 points last season but was -11 that literally means that when Dvorak was on the ice other teams had scored 42 goals. KK had 20 points and was -1 again that means with KK on the other team scored 21 goals. Many compare PPG where Dvorak is a 0.55 and KK was a 0.36 that is all well and good but Dvorak gave up 0.75 ppg and KK gave up 0.38 ppg. tell me which would you rather have from a defensive standpoint a player giving up 0.38 ppg or the one giving up 0.75 ppg? You also claim that KK was horrible on the faceoff but his FO% was 47.9% compared to Suzuki's whose was 44.0, what must you think of Suzuki?! You also claim that Dvorak had less "legit line mates" KK's this year were primarily Byron (16), Lehkonen (13), Armia (14), Perry (21) and Anderson (24). Dvorak had Kessel (43), Keller (35), Crouse (13) and Fischer (11), I would say Dvorak had the better linemates most of the time.

You are not comparing it properly suzuki had tougher match ups. and way more faceoffs taken. KK was sheltered suzuki was not. Dvorak was on a real garbage team so using his stats of plus minus is moot. Dvorak played almost 19 minutes a game and did rather well on a poor team. Montreal needed a faceoff guy who could win faceoffs in the defensive end. Dvorak is at this point in time greater than KK. Also KK spent a lot of time falling down, Dvorak is a strong skater. Dvorak plays Bumper on the power play that was another need montreal was looking for. the trade is done its time to move on. let time tell who ended up winning the trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AH64 said:

You are not comparing it properly suzuki had tougher match ups. and way more faceoffs taken. KK was sheltered suzuki was not. Dvorak was on a real garbage team so using his stats of plus minus is moot. Dvorak played almost 19 minutes a game and did rather well on a poor team. Montreal needed a faceoff guy who could win faceoffs in the defensive end. Dvorak is at this point in time greater than KK. Also KK spent a lot of time falling down, Dvorak is a strong skater. Dvorak plays Bumper on the power play that was another need montreal was looking for. the trade is done its time to move on. let time tell who ended up winning the trade.

Some folks never move on, if the player they like is traded for one whose style they don't like they will search high and low for some stats to support the argument they need to prove they are right. At the end of the day all that matters is what happens on the ice, stats are useful tools nothing more they never will be because stats can't tell you what is going on in a players life. Look at Drouin this year he was looking much better then poof he is gone to a lesser degree Webber was playing hurt all year and many would not admit it they just went back to the trade. I personally have watched Dvorak play and I have spent many nights watching KK play many here will be surprised over the next 4 years by just how good Dvorak is, I hope I am wrong but KK is in for a rough ride with the Canes and then I am sure many will say the Canes used him wrong or we developed him wrong or the dog ate his homework or something. Ask yourself this honestly how would KK have done in Arizona? why the hell do he Canes want him when they have other much more important holes to fill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, AH64 said:

You are not comparing it properly suzuki had tougher match ups. and way more faceoffs taken. KK was sheltered suzuki was not.

The other thing of note on Suzuki/JK that a lot of people seem to miss is that when Nick broke into the league he spent a decent amount of time as our 4th line RW. Not even centre. But he kept working, kept fighting and made the most of his chances.    He was not "given more chances than JK" he just made the most of the ones he had.  This is not a knock on JK. Players develop at different times and I certainly wasnt ready to give up on him prior to the 3x overpayment. But i hate when i hear people suggesting Nick had the ice tilted in his favour while poor ol' JK had to skate uphill. It just isnt the case.

 

40 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

Some folks never move on, if the player they like is traded for one whose style they don't like they will search high and low for some stats to support the argument they need to prove they are right. 

For sure. And the thing is, I like JK. I thought he was going to be a core piece for us for a while. I dont blame him for signing the contract either (although I do think it might come back to haunt him) but Im also ok with moving on.  I like the players but i love the team. It is what it is. Sports is a business.

 

44 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

I hope I am wrong but KK is in for a rough ride with the Canes and then I am sure many will say the Canes used him wrong or we developed him wrong or the dog ate his homework or something. Ask yourself this honestly how would KK have done in Arizona? why the hell do he Canes want him when they have other much more important holes to fill?

Agree with a lot of this.  Although in Arizona I think JK may have actually flourished. In many ways it would have been like playing in the minors: lots of ice time, probably not a huge amount of criticism if he gets things wrong, and much much less pressure.

As for Carolina, I still have no idea why they went after him at $6m. I honestly think they wanted him, they probably offered what they thought was a fair deal and when Montreal turned it down they thought "screw them" and offered a ridiculous contract that they were sure (since we turned down their "fair trade" we would match. 

I do think they wanted JK. I dont think they wanted him at $6.1m 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, maas_art said:

I do think they wanted JK. I dont think they wanted him at $6.1m

Yes a little bit of me thinks Carolina thought Montreal would match the $6.1 mill they were trying to screw Montreal's cap up and thus make a Stanley Cup finalist a weaker team in the process . Since it's a pretty strong bet KK won't live up to the money ( especially on wing ) it's possible Carolina might have thought they could offer him a contract next year when he was devalued somewhat and kill two birds with 1 stone. This could completely blow up in their face because now next year other teams could make a bid for him and Carolina would  be forced to either pony up on another overpayment or ,  better still , eat a large portion of crow .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly the Canes fans seem to think they have a gem.  The overall feeling is:

- next year he will score around 50 points as a winger.

- the following year (when Trochek most likely leaves as an UFA) he will go up to 70-75 points as their #2 centre.

I mean... it could happen but his stats lines are:

79gp  - 11g 23a - 34pts  
36gp  - 6g 2a  8pts
56gp  5g  15a  20pts

He's a career .36ppg and they think next year he'll be .61 and the following he'll be up to .91 ppg ? This seems kind of wishful... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

Interestingly the Canes fans seem to think they have a gem.  The overall feeling is:

- next year he will score around 50 points as a winger.

- the following year (when Trochek most likely leaves as an UFA) he will go up to 70-75 points as their #2 centre.

I mean... it could happen but his stats lines are:

79gp  - 11g 23a - 34pts  
36gp  - 6g 2a  8pts
56gp  5g  15a  20pts

He's a career .36ppg and they think next year he'll be .61 and the following he'll be up to .91 ppg ? This seems kind of wishful... 

On the one hand, as I've said before, I think he'll have a hard time next year. He's moving to wing, he's joining a new team and system, and he's playing behind a lot of depth that will cut into his ice time and PP time if he doesn't start off strong. He's going to have an uphill climb, and as was said, I think Kotkaniemi would have had more success staying here as a clear 2C with little depth behind him or going to another team where he wouldn't have to have fight for his ice time as much. So I agree with the sentiment that JK is going to find next year hard. Plus, you also have it in the back of your mind that Carolina knows they're going to be negotiating a longer-term deal during the season, so why go out of your way to make him look great until that contract is signed?

On the other hand, Carolina has one of the more savvy analytics departments in the league. They are a very strong possession team and they're performance have always seemed to be greater than the individual parts of their roster might suggest. They've made ordinary goalies look great. And if you look at their track record of players acquired, they've done well at finding guys with strong pedigrees and advanced stats who just haven't put it all together necessarily. Teuvo Teravainen is perhaps the best example. They acquired him at age 21 after two years as a highly-touted can't-miss prospect with Chicago and at the time he was traded he had put up 44 points in 115 career games (0.38 PPG). But he had been a star as a prospect and he had had one impressive playoff run with Chicago, and his advanced stats were great. His Corsi in his 3 years with Chicago was 52%, 59%, and 52%. Those stats and that background are almost identical to Kotkaniemi's, and Teravainen has gone on to put up 260 points in 334 games (0.78 PPG). Take out that first year in Carolina and he's been at 0.86 PPG since. So it sounds like an unreasonable prediction for JK but the truth is that that trajectory you saw Canes fans writing about is almost exactly what Teuvo did.

Carolina also acquired Nino Niederreiter when Minnesota bizarrely decided to cast him off. They got Jordan Staal. They got Vincnet Trocheck as a steal from Florida. And they've drafted players like Necas, Ryan Suzuki, Jake Bean, Morgan Geekie, and Seth Jarvis who project as being better analytics type players than traditional evaluations might give them credit for. In short, I tend to trust the evaluation process Carolina has used to make some of their personnel decisions because they've shown to a degree that they know what they're doing.

All that to say that I'd bet on Dvorak having a better season next year than Kotkaniemi has, but largely because I think he's going to be given a 2C spot while Kotkaniemi fights for ice time. But I do think Carolina will be patient with Kotkaniemi and in the long run, I think the odds are good that he'll be a 60-point player down the line and maybe better. If he really does get to move into a 2C role in a year, I think he'll have success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like it will come down to Poehling being a wild card in all of this, based on how he produces. To be honest with everyone, I really don't know that much about him, other than he has been doing well in the minor leagues.

I would like to know a little more about him.

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...