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

Bob Gainey 2008-09


AK-1

Recommended Posts

Koivu signed his deal for 12.18% of the cap, Kovalev for 11.54%, if they were to sign for the same value today that would be 6.8 million for Koivu and 6.5 million for Kovalev. So if we think they are worth about the same now as they were 3 or 4 years ago, that's what they should make.

The guys are UFAs, Gainey will be competing with GMs like Burke. It's not about what he wants to offer, but what it will take to keep them.

We'll see after this season, but I don't believe either Koivu or Kovalev are on the downsides of their careers. Kovalev is coming off his second best season ever, and while Koivu didn't have a great season, I don't believe it's due to his play declining (a number of factors, including Ryder's slump, hurt him last season, but I think he'll be close to a PPG again this season). What we've seen with guys like Sundin is that GMs don't mind throwing money at older players. The only difference between young and older UFAs is the amount of years offered. No one will give Koivu or Kovalev an 8 year contract, but if they have good seasons they could easily get 6-8 million over 1-3 years. In fact, some GMs prefer the older players exactly because they don't take as big of a commitment.

Kostitsyn got 3.25 on only his second deal. Plekanek has already accomplished more than him today and will have another season under his belt. Also, if we don't want him to be a UFA in another year, we'll have to give him some sort of premium for giving up his shot at unrestricted free agency. The only way he gets under 5 is one a one year contract, and even that will be at least 4.

Look at what dmen make on the open market. A player of Komisarek's quality, even if not offensive, is worth at least 6. Look at what guys like Hannan and Hamrlik signed for, and I think Komi is worth more than them (plus the cap has risen since then).

Koivu doesn't need a HUGE season. He needs to return to close to a PPG to show he's not declining with age and he'll get some very nice offers.

And I don't think these salaries are necessarily ridiculous. As I said above, if you look at the salary cap, which is far more important than absolute dollars, a 6.8 million deal for Koivu is the same deal he signed 3 years ago. And even if you do consider them 'ridiculous', Gainey will need to sign some if he wants to keep us competative. Last season, Hamrlik's deal seemed a little crazy, but it needed to happen. And no one will be happy a couple years from now when we finish out of the playoffs because "well we didn't give out any ridiculous contracts".

Plekanec will command 5+ and rightly so, he almost scored 30 last year and he will be a consistent 25-30 man in this league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
They are not necessarily ridiculous, but Gainey, more than most G.M.s, has worked very hard to maintain respectable, yet fair, salaries for his entire roster. I don't think he's going to give in to the cap-era salaries now when he's finally built a contending team. I'm sure he will continue to negotiate hard, yet fairly, with all of his players. Koivu and Kovalev included. There's a reason for them to stay here. Let's see if that reason outweighs rather large offers from other teams if they go to unrestricted free agency. I think they both want to stay. I think Tanguay may want to stay, as well (depending on his year), but he, more than Koivu and Kovalev, may be seeking a higher offer because of his age. I think Gainey will negotiate with most, but not all of our players and get deals done!

Negotiated with:

Mike Komisarek (UFA)

Saku Koivu (UFA)

Alexei Kovalev (UFA)

Tomas Plekanec (RFA)

Chris Higgins (RFA)

Alex Tanguay (UFA)

Kyle Chipchura (RFA)

Guillaume Latendresse (RFA)

Tom Kostopoulos (UFA)

Not negoitated with:

Robert Lang (UFA)

Steve Begin (UFA)

Mathieu Dandenault (UFA)

Francis Bouillon (UFA)

Patrice Brisebois (UFA)

id be surprised if kostopoulos was re signed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's me, ill take Maxwell over him any day.

But you don't always need top notch skating to be in the NHL, look at Latendresse first 2 seasons lol.

Im just saying in the worst case scenario (Koivu and Lang out) next year having centers like

Plekanec

Maxwell

Chipchura

Lapierre

I would still like the direction the club is heading towards to, since were building within our system.

Let's say the UFA's and RFA's that i named stays

A. Kostitsyn - T. Plekanec - A. Kovalev

M. D'Agostini - B. Maxwell - S. Kostitsyn

M. Pacioretty - K. Chipchura - C. Higgins

G. Stewart - M. Lapierre - G. Laraque

A. Markov - M. Komisarek

R. Hamerlik - Y. Webber

R. O'byrne - J. Gorges

Price

Halak

(That's just a lineup considering the worst case scenario, with no one signing with us and a few departures)

And that's purely made up from our system (i know it's never going to happen like that right away next year) but im just saying if we were to lose big pieces of our team, we would still have a decent young competitive team.

thats a scary lineup right there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

id be surprised if kostopoulos was re signed

Probably not resigned, but I think he will be negotiated with/spoken to. He has done well for us since coming here, and I'm sure Bob will extend him something. Probably not much, and he probably won't take it, but an offer "may" be made. He's at the bottom of my presumed priority list. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
According to Darren Dreger, Gainey proposed an idea at the GM meeting to eliminate shot blocking where the player drops down and slides in order to make an increase in goals.

http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip105680#clip105680 (near the end)

I think that's kind of ridiculous.

Yeah... I thought it was a joke at first, and I was waiting for Dreger to start smiling, but apparently he was serious...? It sounds like a silly idea to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, you can agree with Gainey or disagree, but it's certainly a novel way to increase scoring, with an additional side benefit of reducing player injury.
Novel... but still a little out there. I'd rather see them take the grey areas out of the rulebook and penalize players more appropraietely... that would clean up the game and lead to more goals IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Novel... but still a little out there. I'd rather see them take the grey areas out of the rulebook and penalize players more appropraietely... that would clean up the game and lead to more goals IMO.

But then others would complain that too many penalties are killing the game's momentum, as we've heard in the first couple of years after the lockout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, you can agree with Gainey or disagree, but it's certainly a novel way to increase scoring, with an additional side benefit of reducing player injury.
Yeah, when I think about it some:

  • it is thinking outside the box
  • is way better than some other ideas out there
  • hockey wasn't intended to be played lying on your backside; you're supposed to be on your skates
I still can't help going back to the most basic idea though, for getting more goals scored: the goalies have gotten bigger (physically, plus the bigger padding), the puck is still the same size, so, make the nets bigger. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people are complaining that there aren't enough goals scored?

I don't think as many as Bettman believes. I personally like exciting hockey, whether or not the puck enters the net is irrelevant. I've seen exciting 1-1 games and horrible 5-5 games. In fact, constant scoring gets a bit annoying in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL in it's infinate wisdom feels that the way to sell the game in the states is to have oodles and oodles of goals.

I, believe it or not, agree with Graeme.

Good hockey is good hockey whether it is a 5-4 game or a 1-0 game.

Bob put forth a suggestion, and it would lead to more shots, and maybe more goals, so he is right.

I don't think it is the way to go though. Let's get the goalie equipment back to 1970's sizes first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people are complaining that there aren't enough goals scored?

Like the shootout (or skills competition as I call it), trying to create ways to get more goals in another gimmick in a lame attempt to attract more fair weather fans in non-traditional hockey markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, when I think about it some:

  • it is thinking outside the box
  • is way better than some other ideas out there
  • hockey wasn't intended to be played lying on your backside; you're supposed to be on your skates
I still can't help going back to the most basic idea though, for getting more goals scored: the goalies have gotten bigger (physically, plus the bigger padding), the puck is still the same size, so, make the nets bigger. ;)

Fair enough. Initially I thought this was a dumb idea considering that we'd have to trust officials with such a grey area call. However, after reading the bolded part, I somewhat agree. Hockey is meant to played on your skates. It seems that the advances in equipment have made players far too brave nowadays. I would imagine that back in the day people would have been less apt to dive in front of a blazing shot because, with the limited equipment, they'd get hurt. So I suppose here are the options to keep players more "honest".

1. take away some of the modern "armour"

2. implement a shot blocking rule

Clearly the players would be against option 1. Interesting debate for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its an interesting idea for sure

but if a player wants to sacrifice himself for the team he should have that right

but as I've stated, the problem is that with the state of equipment today, they aren't sacrificing themselves in the same way they once were. A rule like this might keep them honest and keep the game the way it was meant to be played... on their feet.

I'm not necessarily FOR this rule, just adding some food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its an interesting idea for sure

but if a player wants to sacrifice himself for the team he should have that right

To be devils advocate here (since I don't really agree with this rule) but it could be argued that players will feel like they "have" to block shots to please their coach, get top minutes, stay in the NHL, etc as long as it's allowed, so it's not a true "choice".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be devils advocate here (since I don't really agree with this rule) but it could be argued that players will feel like they "have" to block shots to please their coach, get top minutes, stay in the NHL, etc as long as it's allowed, so it's not a true "choice".

well your right some guys have no other choice but to block shots because thats how they make a living but, for the part its a choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...