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

Max Traded to Vegas


HabsRuleForever
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

One thing I'd also add is before feeling too sorry for the team here - think of Tavares this summer. Toronto is actually in a slightly worse position than Montreal for income taxes (53.31% vs 53.53% at the top rate, see https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/qc.htm and https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/on.htm). And it wasn't like they even had to overpay for a player of his caliber.

Montreal should be able to sell itself as a destination, even if it means taking slightly less - it's a beautiful city and the Canadiens have more history than any other team.  I'm sure there's plenty of players with pictures of them as kids with their Habs bed sheets too.  Ya you'll make a little less up front, but you get the chance to be a hockey legend.

But why would any player want to play in Montreal right now?

The tax situation is real and not much immediate will be done about that. The other side though as beautiful as Montreal is which is true. The fan base can be wonderful or absolutely ugly. Pacs is an example. When he was scoring 30 + and before Subbans departure everyone loved him. After the Subban situation a lot of people turned and he may  not of had a thing to do with it. Than as Captain (a lot still were upset it should of been Subban who was now gone but most couldn't get over that!) He got unfairly slammed a lot. The thing is a lot of athletes don't want the 110% total attention and demands of a city like Montreal. It would be much more appealing to players if they were left to play the game and didn't have their whole life and family's or girlfriends sometimes scrutinized. Every little rumor true or not evidence or not is blown way out of proportion and is completely unneeded. Living under a microscope personally and professionally has to be very wearing. I know it's a passionate fans base , but that can be unattractive also when it goes as far as this fan base does unfortunately. I know there is only one major sport in Montreal and it's a passion but if you look at other boards and fan bases , it sure seems this base can turn on any individual very fast and a lot of the times its without any direct knowledge of a situation perceived or real. It's a shame really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not upset that Max P got traded but am upset with the lack of respect he received from both Molson & Bergevin, especially MB. Last week both Max & his agent made it very clear that #67 wanted to remain a Hab and never asked to be traded. Molson & MB never denied that fact until Pacioretty boarded a plane and headed to Vegas. Now they're coming out wanting to set the record straight and be truthful. Sorry guys but I have a very difficult time believing those two clowns because rather than pointing the finger at themselves for this team's failures, they rather point them and blame someone else. Shame on them.

 

This trade may end being the best ever made by this organization but the dirty politics played by our owner and his clueless GM should make all of us extremely embarrassed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

That's not really the same question though.

"Hey Carey, if we made you the back-up goalie and you only played 15 games a year, would you want to stay or be traded?"

Can't blame a guy for wanting to leave if the team feels he isn't adequate as a leader/captain. Hard to command respect in the room after being denigrated like that. I always said I never would have selected Max as captain, but I also wouldn't have revoked it either. In any case, MB said the team wouldn't have asked Max to give it up, so in that case, it means Max never requested a trade on that ground.

Pacioretty never asked to be captain. Larry, Moe & Curley (Molson, MB & Therrien) gave it to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WindsorHab-10 said:

Pacioretty never asked to be captain. Larry, Moe & Curley (Molson, MB & Therrien) gave it to him.

The team voted him in as Captain so it doesn't matter what the fans think or who the fans wanted. The telling thing is when he said the "team" wouldn't ask him to give it up. I take that as the players stood behind him and wouldn't want him to give it up, which if true is the most telling. Either way at this point it actually doesn't matter. That the fans keep debating over how or why he was Captain is very telling of anyone wanting to be in that position as a player. I would think it would be tough enough just attending all the functions and interviews that the team requires of a Captain, then pile on all the thoughts from "the fans" questioning everything about the position and the person chosen especially if they thought their favorite was shunned. I would say there definitely is a pride to being Captain of a franchise especially the HABS , but would it really be worth all the extra that goes along with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care as much about the money/tax issue. This league is a young man's league more than ever. MOST of the time, players become UFAs when they are past their prime (Pacioretty is an example of this). You win by drafting and developing well and that's why we're losing... its not because we didn't attract enough good UFAs. 

I do think this tax issue is a problem in the league but, its not quite a big deal except for in a handful of teams; the ones in Florida, Texas, Washington(Seattle), and Nevada. Everyone else is not THAT far apart. Anyway, the league isn't going to do anything about it. 

Also don't forget cost of living. Montreal is the cheapest major city to live in in north america... its not even close. Just look at the cost of housing. That has to factor in a little as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, habsisme said:

I don't care as much about the money/tax issue. This league is a young man's league more than ever. MOST of the time, players become UFAs when they are past their prime (Pacioretty is an example of this). You win by drafting and developing well and that's why we're losing... its not because we didn't attract enough good UFAs. 

I do think this tax issue is a problem in the league but, its not quite a big deal except for in a handful of teams; the ones in Florida, Texas, Washington(Seattle), and Nevada. Everyone else is not THAT far apart. Anyway, the league isn't going to do anything about it. 

Also don't forget cost of living. Montreal is the cheapest major city to live in in north america... its not even close. Just look at the cost of housing. That has to factor in a little as well. 

This is basically my feeling. There's no doubt the few teams without state income tax have a non-trivial advantage here, but there's so many factors, it's hard to quantify (eg. while cost of living in Canada is generally considered higher than the US, that's not necessarily true if you're getting paid in USD but most of your expenses are in CAD with current exchange rates).

And I agree there's no way the league would open that can of worms because as soon as fairness is the goal, all the owners are going to start wanting changes (more profit sharing to ensure all teams can spend the same, stop big-market teams from paying so much to coaches/executives - although capping that is probably illegal, other cap exemptions because "New York is expensive for our players to buy mansions", offering players a "stuck in Edmonton" stipend, etc. ).

Montreal needs to worry less about other teams advantages and use its own advantages to attract and retain talent. We've done it before - think someone like Petry who decided against testing free agency to stay here on a very reasonable deal. Toronto did it to attract Tavares. But when the entire team looks like a circus, why would even a die-hard Canadiens fan want to come/stay with the team?  If I was a UFA being offered the same money right now by the Leafs and Canadiens, I'd honestly go to the Leafs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

The tax situation is real and not much immediate will be done about that. The other side though as beautiful as Montreal is which is true. The fan base can be wonderful or absolutely ugly. Pacs is an example. When he was scoring 30 + and before Subbans departure everyone loved him. After the Subban situation a lot of people turned and he may  not of had a thing to do with it. Than as Captain (a lot still were upset it should of been Subban who was now gone but most couldn't get over that!) He got unfairly slammed a lot. The thing is a lot of athletes don't want the 110% total attention and demands of a city like Montreal. It would be much more appealing to players if they were left to play the game and didn't have their whole life and family's or girlfriends sometimes scrutinized. Every little rumor true or not evidence or not is blown way out of proportion and is completely unneeded. Living under a microscope personally and professionally has to be very wearing. I know it's a passionate fans base , but that can be unattractive also when it goes as far as this fan base does unfortunately. I know there is only one major sport in Montreal and it's a passion but if you look at other boards and fan bases , it sure seems this base can turn on any individual very fast and a lot of the times its without any direct knowledge of a situation perceived or real. It's a shame really.

The crazy fandom is true in basically all of Canada, and it depends on the individual if it's a problem or not. A player like Subban love the spotlight and as far as we know, had no desire to leave despite some occasional media complaints.

Let's also not forget that the team can help here - while I had some issues with Gainey's moves while he was here, the way he came out to defend Brisebois was really something - imagine Bergevin in that situation. The fact Pacioretty got blasted due to Subban leaving was largely management's fault - for trading him in the first place and then giving unclear or at least unconvincing reasons for why they did it. With Pacioretty now, they've let rumors swirl and are now in a he-said-she-said match with his agent over who said and leaked what.

It's one thing to play in a challenging city, it's another when the team doesn't seem to have your back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Graeme-1 said:

This is basically my feeling. There's no doubt the few teams without state income tax have a non-trivial advantage here, but there's so many factors, it's hard to quantify (eg. while cost of living in Canada is generally considered higher than the US, that's not necessarily true if you're getting paid in USD but most of your expenses are in CAD with current exchange rates).

And I agree there's no way the league would open that can of worms because as soon as fairness is the goal, all the owners are going to start wanting changes (more profit sharing to ensure all teams can spend the same, stop big-market teams from paying so much to coaches/executives - although capping that is probably illegal, other cap exemptions because "New York is expensive for our players to buy mansions", offering players a "stuck in Edmonton" stipend, etc. ).

Montreal needs to worry less about other teams advantages and use its own advantages to attract and retain talent. We've done it before - think someone like Petry who decided against testing free agency to stay here on a very reasonable deal. Toronto did it to attract Tavares. But when the entire team looks like a circus, why would even a die-hard Canadiens fan want to come/stay with the team?  If I was a UFA being offered the same money right now by the Leafs and Canadiens, I'd honestly go to the Leafs.

:4224:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

10 million sounds a little exaggerated. With simple tax calculations (no fancy deductions or anything), if I calculated correctly, he'll take home about 4.2 million in Vegas. To get that in Montreal he'd need around 9 million.

So I don't necessarily think Max would have taken that exact deal here. But what gets me is there's still a big difference between 4 years and 8 years. Something like 5 years at 8 million would seem roughly equivalent to that deal after accounting for tax differences (take home ~500k less a year, but add insurance of an extra 8 million year) - still a long ways from the 8 for 8 we were hearing about.

I didn't calculate myself, just quoting what I read... so this time, I went to capfriendly's tax calculator. Max will take home about 4.44M per year with Vegas. The equivalent salary to make that in Mtl would be a hair under 9.5M per year. Still, that's 2.5M extra against the cap per season. Very hard to work around that as a GM if you're at that type of disadvantage.

And yes if Max is willing to accept 4 years elsewhere, what was the hold up about a 4 year deal here? Or even 6? Surely MB could have offered 6 years x 7.5M and gotten it done instead of trading from a position of weakness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I didn't calculate myself, just quoting what I read... so this time, I went to capfriendly's tax calculator. Max will take home about 4.44M per year with Vegas. The equivalent salary to make that in Mtl would be a hair under 9.5M per year. Still, that's 2.5M extra against the cap per season. Very hard to work around that as a GM if you're at that type of disadvantage.

And yes if Max is willing to accept 4 years elsewhere, what was the hold up about a 4 year deal here? Or even 6? Surely MB could have offered 6 years x 7.5M and gotten it done instead of trading from a position of weakness...

I'm reasonably confident that tax calculator isn't including Medicare taxes, so the take-home they're calculating for all US based teams is too high (Medicare would add just under 2.35% in taxes for someone in the millions).

But in any case, 2 million is still definitely non-trivial.  But ya, we could have offered 6 x 7.5M (or maybe 5 x 8M) and on paper those seem better than the Vegas deal even taking tax differences into account. One the one hand, I'm glad we got a young prospect and can hopefully start rebuilding, but it just seems like this situation could have been handled much better.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Graeme-1 said:

I'm reasonably confident that tax calculator isn't including Medicare taxes, so the take-home they're calculating for all US based teams is too high (Medicare would add just under 2.35% in taxes for someone in the millions).

But in any case, 2 million is still definitely non-trivial.  But ya, we could have offered 6 x 7.5M (or maybe 5 x 8M) and on paper those seem better than the Vegas deal even taking tax differences into account. One the one hand, I'm glad we got a young prospect and can hopefully start rebuilding, but it just seems like this situation could have been handled much better.

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I don;t know I'm glad we didn;t sign him. Of course he is the better player but... Tatar is younger AND he scored more goals then Pacioretty did last year! You add the second and what looks like a great prospect... and it just make total sense. I love this deal

I think two things can be true:

1. We can be happy with the deal we got in the situation we're in.

2. We can feel like the situation wasn't handled properly.

I think given how Bergevin has run the team into the ground, we likely weren't going to be in a position to challenge for a Cup with Pacioretty as a focal point in the line-up. And yes, I think Suzuki is simply a better asset for us given our situation than Pacioretty is. If we can turn the 2nd rounder into an NHL player or turn Tatar into other futures, then it's a bigger win for us. But at the same time, the deal was also a win for a team like Vegas: they traded a guy that didn't fit into their plans (Tatar) and a 2nd rounder (with maybe a 10-15% chance of making the NHL) and a prospect (who is not a sure thing and a year or two away in all likelihood) for a guy that's a prove scorer, fits a need, and comes in on a deal that only takes him through 34 years old. Term is probably the biggest thing a team can win on a contract with a premier player, and Vegas did that.

Again, I can buy this trade, and I think we're in a better situation than we were two days ago before this happened. But I still feel like Bergevin has no plan. He's making a rebuild trade with Pacioretty, yet he's stated he plans on holding onto Weber and Price and trying to make the playoffs. He hasn't replaced any goal-scoring despite dumping his two top snipers. And ultimately, I continue to feel like Pacioretty's trade value would have been higher if Bergevin hadn't alienated him, traded him at his lowest value (as he's done with most of his other star players), and refused to negotiate a deal with him. You look at that contract Max signed and I find it hard to believe we wouldn't have been offered a better deal with another team knowing he would be on a 4 x 7M pact. I would have liked to see a top prospect AND a 1st rounder, and I don't think that's unrealistic based on what players like Nash and Duchene pulled in. It might have been less realistic with where Bergevin put himself, but it shouldn't have been unrealistic, and that's the problem.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

You look at that contract Max signed and I find it hard to believe we wouldn't have been offered a better deal with another team knowing he would be on a 4 x 7M pact. I would have liked to see a top prospect AND a 1st rounder, and I don't think that's unrealistic based on what players like Nash and Duchene pulled in. It might have been less realistic with where Bergevin put himself, but it shouldn't have been unrealistic, and that's the problem.

It's difficult to say, comparing to terrible deals where the receiving team overpaid might not be realistic idea of what we could get (GMs do learn sometimes).

As a Habs fan, I'm also not sure what Pacioretty's reputation is across the league. But my perception is - perhaps because he's relatively one-dimensional - he's not talked about the same as someone like Duchene - despite having a much better track record. He's also an older player coming off a down season (while I expect him to rebound, it's not unheard of for star players to just drop off a cliff around 30).

With that said, I have no reason to give MB the benefit of the doubt at this point. Had we not looked so desperate to make this trade, perhaps we could have extracted more? Impossible to say, but if MB handled the whole thing better, we wouldn't be asking the question.

On the note of GMs - McPhee has got to be the most puzzling GM I've ever see. He engineered the expansion draft perfectly (managed to get a ton of futures and accidentally built a cup contender), made smart moves this offseason (Statsny + Pacioretty on reasonable term makes a ton of sense) , and overall seems like a top GM. But then you look at that (awful looking at the time, worse in hindsight) Tatar trade and think back to Washington's (awful looking at the time, worse in hindsight) Forseberg trade and wonder. It's like he's a good GM for 364 days of the year, maybe he just needs to call in sick on deadline-day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2018 at 11:11 PM, BigTed3 said:

 

I think two things can be true:

1. We can be happy with the deal we got in the situation we're in.

2. We can feel like the situation wasn't handled properly.

I think given how Bergevin has run the team into the ground, we likely weren't going to be in a position to challenge for a Cup with Pacioretty as a focal point in the line-up. And yes, I think Suzuki is simply a better asset for us given our situation than Pacioretty is. If we can turn the 2nd rounder into an NHL player or turn Tatar into other futures, then it's a bigger win for us. But at the same time, the deal was also a win for a team like Vegas: they traded a guy that didn't fit into their plans (Tatar) and a 2nd rounder (with maybe a 10-15% chance of making the NHL) and a prospect (who is not a sure thing and a year or two away in all likelihood) for a guy that's a prove scorer, fits a need, and comes in on a deal that only takes him through 34 years old. Term is probably the biggest thing a team can win on a contract with a premier player, and Vegas did that.

Again, I can buy this trade, and I think we're in a better situation than we were two days ago before this happened. But I still feel like Bergevin has no plan. He's making a rebuild trade with Pacioretty, yet he's stated he plans on holding onto Weber and Price and trying to make the playoffs. He hasn't replaced any goal-scoring despite dumping his two top snipers. And ultimately, I continue to feel like Pacioretty's trade value would have been higher if Bergevin hadn't alienated him, traded him at his lowest value (as he's done with most of his other star players), and refused to negotiate a deal with him. You look at that contract Max signed and I find it hard to believe we wouldn't have been offered a better deal with another team knowing he would be on a 4 x 7M pact. I would have liked to see a top prospect AND a 1st rounder, and I don't think that's unrealistic based on what players like Nash and Duchene pulled in. It might have been less realistic with where Bergevin put himself, but it shouldn't have been unrealistic, and that's the problem.

Agree with both points.

Max was good, was not one-dimensional IMO and yet only exemplified the Habs "close but no cigar" in terms of making it to the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...