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

2016-17 If I Were GM...


BigTed3

Recommended Posts

On 3/4/2017 at 1:03 AM, BigTed3 said:

Thought it would be interesting to play around with capfriendly's Armchair GM set-up and build a team from scratch, with the only catch being that you have to create a 23-man roster that fits under the cap. Not so bad getting around this because of some star young players on bargain deals right now, but this is what I came up with... give it a try yourself and see what roster you'd build:

Pacioretty-McDavid-Seguin

Panarin-Tavares-Laine

Marchand-Johansen-Simmonds

Huberdeau-Galchenyuk-Drouin

Jenner, Pastrnak as extra forwards

 

Hedman-Karlsson

Josi-Ekblad

Nurse-Trouba

Carlo

 

Price

Murray

 

With 3.8M to spare! Could obviously use that to upgrade slightly somewhere, but the guys I chose were IMO very good value for the money. Three Habs made by roster, but I'd welcome any of the others on the Canadiens if we could ever acquire them!

I tried, but it's too easy to build an all star roster, so I didn't find it entertaining. 
I started instituting my own rules to make it more difficult, but even then I ended up with an all star roster. 

Some examples:

- Start with the Canadiens. Must keep 2 F 1 D 1 G. I kept Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, Price, and forced myself to keep Weber to make it interesting.
- Average age must be higher than 26. There are a handful of clubs younger than that, but I didn't want to be able to pick a lot of young/cheap players. It still ended up being too easy, so might have to go even further and restrict number of players by age group. (35+ x2 / 30+ x4 / 27+ x4 / 25+ x7 / 20+ x6, for example. So while you can have 13 players that are 25+, you can only have 6 players that are under 25.) This still seemed too easy.
- Next idea was to restrict by salary. Only 1 player in the top 6 can make under 1M. 2nd line players must be over 3M, 1st line players must be over 5M. Still didn't seem to go far enough, and didn't prevent stuffing the bottom 6 with young, high-end forwards. Same story for the defense.
- Then I tried identifying players by their roles, and they had to be suited for the line they were on. 1st line: Offense, 2nd: line offense, 3rd and 4th lines 2-way or defensive players. Ran into some issues there because a lot of bottom 6 players by nature I'm not super familiar with. The familiar players tend to be bottom 6 "all stars" themselves, again skewing the lineup towards too easy.
- Last idea I had was to limit by production, which I "think" might work best. You can only have a combined goal total equal to the highest scoring team from last season (I think it was 267). I didn't try this idea yet, so that might be the next and I'll see if it still looks like a ridiculous lineup.
- The only other thought I had was somehow using self control and picking a number of sub-par players to balance things out, but that's surprisingly (perhaps not surprisingly) difficult to do when you have full control.

If it helps, Vegas is in the create a team section with an empty roster, so you can start with a blank slate and pull players you want by trading them to your team. I find it easier to navigate than drafting, or starting with the habs and having to dump a bunch of players to start.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Case for Trading Shea Weber

Pros: Frees up $7.8MM in cap space which could be used to sign a free agent centre with offensive capacity and or get one back in such a trade. Weber due $12MM in cash next season in salary and bonus payments .... ouch!!! This also allows us to bring along defensive prospects Juulsen and Sergychev more quickly instead of destroying them with the Ice Caps. If trading Weber we would keep Beau/Petry/Benn and hope Davidson and Emelin survive the expansion draft exposure. Timing of the trade would of course dictate who we could protect in the expansion draft. Weber turns 32 this August. His numbers have not shown any fall off in production yet however how long will that hold true? He is slow and other than a big shot on the PP, offensive capacity is somewhat limited. Possession numbers are weak. Faster teams pose a problem for him. Based on comparables this guy should not represent the second highest cap hit for defensemen in the NHL.

Cons: Weber is definitely one of the team leaders and eats up big minutes. He has gaudy numbers for offensive production on the power play and he is among the league leaders in hits. His Plus/Minus numbers are also good from a league perspective. He is also a key shutdown guy for the PK. Moving him will definitely leave a hole on our defense that no one incumbent will fill individually.  

Example of Suggested Trade: Ryan O'Reilly is on a team with 3 great centres in Buffalo and bupkis on defence. His cap hit ($7.5MM) is a wash with Weber and he is signed through 2013 when he will only be 31. We might offer Weber, say Hudon as a prospect centre, and our 2018 number 1 pick in return for O'Reilly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eldag said:

The Case for Trading Shea Weber

Pros: Frees up $7.8MM in cap space which could be used to sign a free agent centre with offensive capacity and or get one back in such a trade. Weber due $12MM in cash next season in salary and bonus payments .... ouch!!! This also allows us to bring along defensive prospects Juulsen and Sergychev more quickly instead of destroying them with the Ice Caps. If trading Weber we would keep Beau/Petry/Benn and hope Davidson and Emelin survive the expansion draft exposure. Timing of the trade would of course dictate who we could protect in the expansion draft. Weber turns 32 this August. His numbers have not shown any fall off in production yet however how long will that hold true? He is slow and other than a big shot on the PP, offensive capacity is somewhat limited. Possession numbers are weak. Faster teams pose a problem for him. Based on comparables this guy should not represent the second highest cap hit for defensemen in the NHL.

Cons: Weber is definitely one of the team leaders and eats up big minutes. He has gaudy numbers for offensive production on the power play and he is among the league leaders in hits. His Plus/Minus numbers are also good from a league perspective. He is also a key shutdown guy for the PK. Moving him will definitely leave a hole on our defense that no one incumbent will fill individually.  

Example of Suggested Trade: Ryan O'Reilly is on a team with 3 great centres in Buffalo and bupkis on defence. His cap hit ($7.5MM) is a wash with Weber and he is signed through 2013 when he will only be 31. We might offer Weber, say Hudon as a prospect centre, and our 2018 number 1 pick in return for O'Reilly.

I'm not against trading Weber, but I just don't see it happening this soon. We're probably looking at when Price needs to be re-signed at the earliest for such a move. If Price isn't comfortable with our roster situation and it is a factor in his decision, I could see as moving Weber at that point. 

I will say that I don't see the cap number being of particular benefit this season, as there isn't really much available in free agency. Next year is a little better, with Statsny, Tavares, and Turris, among others (Eller? lol). I would trade Weber for peanuts if it meant signing Tavares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RicochetII said:

I'm not against trading Weber, but I just don't see it happening this soon. We're probably looking at when Price needs to be re-signed at the earliest for such a move. If Price isn't comfortable with our roster situation and it is a factor in his decision, I could see as moving Weber at that point. 

I will say that I don't see the cap number being of particular benefit this season, as there isn't really much available in free agency. Next year is a little better, with Statsny, Tavares, and Turris, among others (Eller? lol). I would trade Weber for peanuts if it meant signing Tavares.

Weber's contract likely makes him untradable for a couple years. Can't see too many teams lining up to pay the guy 12 million next year (unless we eat a lot of it up), along with that big cap hit. He'll likely retire before his deal expires regardless. He will have collected the bulk of the money up front and likely walks rather then play for a million a year in his late 30's. That's Nashville's problem though.

Cap is reported to go up between 2 and 3 mill next year, which gives us additional breathing room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, H_T_L said:

Weber's contract likely makes him untradable for a couple years. Can't see too many teams lining up to pay the guy 12 million next year (unless we eat a lot of it up), along with that big cap hit. He'll likely retire before his deal expires regardless. He will have collected the bulk of the money up front and likely walks rather then play for a million a year in his late 30's. That's Nashville's problem though.

Cap is reported to go up between 2 and 3 mill next year, which gives us additional breathing room.

Not sure that's an issue, as his salary is $8M as a signing bonus. So he would be much more affordable once the majority of that is paid off next season.
What would be the typical payment date for that $8M, or is it in installments? I can't seem to recall if there is a standard or it's part of the terms. 

The following season, his salary is always lower than his cap hit, which is part of what makes it more possible to trade him. 

At this point, I'm not even sure we need to protect him for the expansion draft. He's due for $12M in cash next season and he doesn't help Vegas reach their minimum requirement for cap spent. He might appeal as the base/leader for the start of their franchise and draw attention to the team. It would definitely make a splash. I would almost be tempted if it didn't seem like such a waste based on what we gave up for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what others think about re-sign values for the end of the season so far. 
Capfriendly for reference: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canadiens
Looking for all players, regardless of expansion and whether we actually re-sign them. (Players in the minors can be assumed to maintain a similar salary, so we'll forego them, unless they get called up and do something spectacular.)
Should help people playing armchair GM to get better numbers.

UFA

Radulov
King
Flynn
Ott
Martensen
Markov

RFA

Galchenyuk
Beaulieu
Nesterov

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RicochetII said:

Curious what others think about re-sign values for the end of the season so far. 
Capfriendly for reference: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canadiens
Looking for all players, regardless of expansion and whether we actually re-sign them. (Players in the minors can be assumed to maintain a similar salary, so we'll forego them, unless they get called up and do something spectacular.)
Should help people playing armchair GM to get better numbers.

UFA

Radulov
King
Flynn
Ott
Martensen
Markov

RFA

Galchenyuk
Beaulieu
Nesterov

I would pass in re-siging King (especially since it bumps the pick we traded to LA up from a 4th to a 3rd if we do), as well as Flynn, and Ott. Nesterov is ok if the plan is to have him as an AHL player capable of being recalled (akin to Barberio or Redmond this year). I don't think he fits into the top 6. For the rest,

- Radulov will likely be able to get 5-6 years at 7M a season on the open market. However, he seems to like playing here. I think 4 years at something like 6.5M is a reasonable compromise and would hopefully be enough to keep him here.

- Martensen would be a guy I'd re-sign as a 13th forward energy guy, based on early returns thus far... I wouldn't give him more than 2 seasons and no more than 750-800k a year. If he wants more, let him walk.

- Markov needs to take a pay cut to stay. I get that he's having a good year, but the cumulative body of work over the past few years tells us he's having a good year this year because he's been more sheltered with minutes and match-ups. His injury might actually have helped him stay fresher throughout the year. I would be asking him to take one year deals at a time and I think the right amount is somewhere in the 4.25-4.5M a season range.

- Galchenyuk is going to get at least 6M a year. All his contemporaries have done just as well. I think he's worth 6M a season for the next couple of seasons and probably upwards of 7M eating into his UFA years. So something like 7 years, 7M a season works for me.

- Beaulieu hasn't been able to establish himself as a top 4 guy yet. I think he'll end up being in the 3-3.5M range on a 3-4 year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markov: His actual salary this season is $4.25M, so that seems reasonable for 1 year.

Beaulieu: He's arbitration eligible and I think he will get over $4M if he is determined. I can't see why he wouldn't want to get a significant raise after signing his last contract. If he's a top 4D that's fine. If Bergevin disagrees, he might as well trade him. Anything under $3.75M is only a 2nd round pick via offer sheet. After that it's up to $5.6M for a 1st and a 3rd. Not that offer sheets are likely or common, but a potential top 4D, former first round pick, is easily worth that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put a rough picture together on Capfriendly https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/286366 

I'll tinker with it over time with feedback and as events occur. 

It's going to be tight, and there isn't going to be a lot of roster improvement unless we move some salary. What MB/Vegas do might have a big impact on what we can do going into next season. If they take some salary off our books or we can trade some unwanted salary away, we have some options. Otherwise it will be pretty much status quo and hoping a better coach can take our typical hot start and make it consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RicochetII said:

Put a rough picture together on Capfriendly https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/286366 

I'll tinker with it over time with feedback and as events occur. 

It's going to be tight, and there isn't going to be a lot of roster improvement unless we move some salary. What MB/Vegas do might have a big impact on what we can do going into next season. If they take some salary off our books or we can trade some unwanted salary away, we have some options. Otherwise it will be pretty much status quo and hoping a better coach can take our typical hot start and make it consistent.

I'd love to lock in Chucky for 8 years, and i imagine he would jump all over that 7mill/year. Might be able to get him a bit cheaper at 6.5, but i doubt MB offers him anything but a bridge deal, based on what he did with our last superstar player.

Your Rad offer is a best case scenario for us. Again,,,,i have my doubts that offer (term mostly) is taken serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

I'd love to lock in Chucky for 8 years, and i imagine he would jump all over that 7mill/year. Might be able to get him a bit cheaper at 6.5, but i doubt MB offers him anything but a bridge deal, based on what he did with our last superstar player.

Your Rad offer is a best case scenario for us. Again,,,,i have my doubts that offer (term mostly) is taken serious.

Galchenyuk: I think if he takes a 1 year bridge deal he's RFA next year, but another 2 year bridge makes him UFA (I'd have to double check the rules to be sure). Doesn't seem like a wise idea, unless both parties are shooting for keeping him in Montreal for 9 or 10 more years, as opposed to 8. I would prefer not to risk it.

Radulov offer is indeed based on him wanting to stay in Montreal and not testing free agency, where he could likely get more. We can offer more if the cap goes up more, or if Galchenyuk does agree to a 1 year bridge deal at a lower value.

14 minutes ago, kinot-2 said:

From what I understand, the cap ceiling will go up another 2.5 mil. 

Hoping so, but I used a conservative estimate (enough to sign another depth player) until we have a better idea. Normally depends on the escalator clause, and is up to the NHLPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, RicochetII said:

Galchenyuk: I think if he takes a 1 year bridge deal he's RFA next year, but another 2 year bridge makes him UFA (I'd have to double check the rules to be sure). Doesn't seem like a wise idea, unless both parties are shooting for keeping him in Montreal for 9 or 10 more years, as opposed to 8. I would prefer not to risk it.

Radulov offer is indeed based on him wanting to stay in Montreal and not testing free agency, where he could likely get more. We can offer more if the cap goes up more, or if Galchenyuk does agree to a 1 year bridge deal at a lower value.

Hoping so, but I used a conservative estimate (enough to sign another depth player) until we have a better idea. Normally depends on the escalator clause, and is up to the NHLPA.

Ideally we lock Chucky up now, but once again, MB as GM leaves that in doubt. Bridge deal is not ideal but we have 10mill + whatever Marky resigns for (assuming 1 year deal) coming off the books after next year (Pleks+Emelin+Marky) At that time we'll be looking at more money for Patches and Price, and ideally Sergachev is ready to step into Marky's role full time.We look to be in decent shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, H_T_L said:

Ideally we lock Chucky up now, but once again, MB as GM leaves that in doubt. Bridge deal is not ideal but we have 10mill + whatever Marky resigns for (assuming 1 year deal) coming off the books after next year (Pleks+Emelin+Marky) At that time we'll be looking at more money for Patches and Price, and ideally Sergachev is ready to step into Marky's role full time.We look to be in decent shape.

Makes you wonder if Julien will have an impact in the future deals.


MT clearly undervalued his young players.  I am sure that before MB makes any sort of contract negotiations he will talk with his coaches to get a sense of how they value their players.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galchenyuk already took a bridge deal, which is why he's an RFA now, whereas Gallagher was given a long-term deal, despite the fact both guys had the same amount of NHL experience. Galchenyuk deserves to get paid, he's proven he's a more valuable commodity than Gallagher. It's funny, because MB has some players on really team-friendly contracts (Pacioretty, Price, Gallagher, etc.) but he's also signed players to really bad long-term deals (Emelin, Moen, Prust, Desharnais, etc, not to mention Michel Therrien's early extension for no reason). And when it comes to young stars, he's really failed miserably at locking up players before they hit prime and cost us more (Subban, Eller, Galchenyuk...). Failing to sign Subban to 8 years and something like 5-6 million when he could have resulted in our having to pay him 9M a year after he won a Norris and lost all bargaining power. If Galchenyuk hadn't been injured, he might have been a 30-40 goal man and a top 10 point-getter in the league, and then where would we be?
To me, another bridge deal is out of the question. Either MB signs Galchenyuk to a 5+ year deal or else he's trading him away the way he did Subban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

Galchenyuk already took a bridge deal, which is why he's an RFA now, whereas Gallagher was given a long-term deal, despite the fact both guys had the same amount of NHL experience. Galchenyuk deserves to get paid, he's proven he's a more valuable commodity than Gallagher. It's funny, because MB has some players on really team-friendly contracts (Pacioretty, Price, Gallagher, etc.) but he's also signed players to really bad long-term deals (Emelin, Moen, Prust, Desharnais, etc, not to mention Michel Therrien's early extension for no reason). And when it comes to young stars, he's really failed miserably at locking up players before they hit prime and cost us more (Subban, Eller, Galchenyuk...). Failing to sign Subban to 8 years and something like 5-6 million when he could have resulted in our having to pay him 9M a year after he won a Norris and lost all bargaining power. If Galchenyuk hadn't been injured, he might have been a 30-40 goal man and a top 10 point-getter in the league, and then where would we be?
To me, another bridge deal is out of the question. Either MB signs Galchenyuk to a 5+ year deal or else he's trading him away the way he did Subban.

I just hope that MB has learned his lessons and will refrain from expensive extensions, and "over-rating" his players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Galchenyuk already took a bridge deal, which is why he's an RFA now, whereas Gallagher was given a long-term deal, despite the fact both guys had the same amount of NHL experience. Galchenyuk deserves to get paid, he's proven he's a more valuable commodity than Gallagher. It's funny, because MB has some players on really team-friendly contracts (Pacioretty, Price, Gallagher, etc.) but he's also signed players to really bad long-term deals (Emelin, Moen, Prust, Desharnais, etc, not to mention Michel Therrien's early extension for no reason). And when it comes to young stars, he's really failed miserably at locking up players before they hit prime and cost us more (Subban, Eller, Galchenyuk...). Failing to sign Subban to 8 years and something like 5-6 million when he could have resulted in our having to pay him 9M a year after he won a Norris and lost all bargaining power. If Galchenyuk hadn't been injured, he might have been a 30-40 goal man and a top 10 point-getter in the league, and then where would we be?
To me, another bridge deal is out of the question. Either MB signs Galchenyuk to a 5+ year deal or else he's trading him away the way he did Subban.

So Galchenyuk to the Kings for Brown? He hits, is tough to play against, and has leadership qualities. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

I think if you're Marc Bergevin you have to make a side deal with Vegas to ensure you have Davidson and Benn next season on the back end.  Something like: Emelin and a conditional 2nd in 2018 to the Golden Knights for condtional 4th and 6th in 2018.  The conditions being that Vegas lays off Benn and Davidson. 

All the mock expansion drafts I read say the knights will claim Plekanec. http://thehockeywriters.com/golden-knights-mock-expansion-draft-christmas-edition/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

I think if you're Marc Bergevin you have to make a side deal with Vegas to ensure you have Davidson and Benn next season on the back end.  Something like: Emelin and a conditional 2nd in 2018 to the Golden Knights for condtional 4th and 6th in 2018.  The conditions being that Vegas lays off Benn and Davidson. 

I'm starting to think that these deals with Vegas are going to be at a heavy premium.

Some trades will be made for quantity, and when Vegas isn't particularly interested in a certain team's offerings, some misdirection on Vegas' part could result in extra assets.
Example 1: Vegas is interested in Davidson, but tells Montreal they plan to select Benn. Montreal then offers a pick in exchange for picking Davidson, which is the player Vegas wanted anyway, and they get an extra pick for nothing.
Example 2: Vegas agrees to pick Emelin, if Montreal gives them De La Rose. They get 2 usable players from 1 selection.

The problem is, that a lot of teams are going to be interested in unloading a contract. It's a get out of jail free card for GMs that doesn't come around too often. For reference, when the compliance buyout was made available 18 teams took advantage of it, for a total of 28 players. This is arguably a more appealing opportunity, as the team doesn't remain responsible for the salaries of the players they are seeking to unload. Teams that were questionable due to budgetary constraints can take part.
Obviously Vegas isn't going to take 18 players that other teams don't want, let alone the 18 picks/prospects that come with them.

There will likely be a few teams that offer intriguing prospect incentives, that Vegas will deal with. They will increase their prospect quantity to improve their chances at ending up with a usable player. Then there will be a few teams that offer quality draft picks. We could be talking picks in the 20-40 range, at least. Competing teams that are willing to drop a low 1st rounder to free up the cap space for a quality acquisition, will likely be the players there.
Example: Montreal wants to sign Oshie. Plekanec's salary goes to Vegas, along with a 1st round pick. Essentially trading Plekanec and a 1st for Oshie.

Vegas is going to squeeze teams hard, just as teams have been scrambling to ensure they aren't offering up too much value in the expansion draft.
The teams that are willing to pay, are going to be the ones that benefit. From what we ordinarily see from MB, he's a bargain shopper and prefers to sit on his prospects, only moving them when he's decided they have no value. I don't see MB being one of those "big players" in the expansion process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking about dealing away prospects or picks as a side deal though, it's important to think about what you're giving up to keep the assets you want. Take the D for example... we know Weber and Petry will be two of the players protected. The third D man will likely be either Beaulieu or Benn, or maybe MB goes the 4 forwards/4 D men route and protects both guys. We also know that if we want him back, Markov will almost certainly re-sign here, and Sergachev could make the jump. So going into next year, we know we can put together a D corps that features Weber, Petry, Markov, Emelin, Sergachev, and at least two of Benn, Beaulieu, and Davidson. MB has stockpiled depth on defence, and while we may rate our own guys highly, the truth is that Davidson is not a star player and can be replaced. Benn has played well, but he's no spring chicken either and at the end of the day, he's a depth defenceman who is not going to be a regular in the top 4. If you overplay him like we did Emelin, eventually you're going to see cracks in the armor.

So why trade away a 1st or 2nd round pick to keep Benn or Davidson? Let Vegas select one of them if that's who they want and then use that 2nd round pick to go out and trade for another D man of your choosing. Or wait until after the draft and then figure out what Vegas wants to trade the guy back, if you really do want him. At that point, Vegas has got no secret cards and you might be able to negotiate with them a little more clearly. I don't see a need for MB to make a side deal here ahead of the draft. To me, he's going to protect Pacman, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Danault, Shaw, Byron, and maybe Hudon (if we're lucky) up front and Weber, Petry, and one of Beaulieu or Benn. If we lose Plekanec or Emelin or Davidson or Benn/Beaulieu or DLR or Montoya, then so be it and we move on. Not the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

If we're talking about dealing away prospects or picks as a side deal though, it's important to think about what you're giving up to keep the assets you want. Take the D for example... we know Weber and Petry will be two of the players protected. The third D man will likely be either Beaulieu or Benn, or maybe MB goes the 4 forwards/4 D men route and protects both guys. We also know that if we want him back, Markov will almost certainly re-sign here, and Sergachev could make the jump. So going into next year, we know we can put together a D corps that features Weber, Petry, Markov, Emelin, Sergachev, and at least two of Benn, Beaulieu, and Davidson. MB has stockpiled depth on defence, and while we may rate our own guys highly, the truth is that Davidson is not a star player and can be replaced. Benn has played well, but he's no spring chicken either and at the end of the day, he's a depth defenceman who is not going to be a regular in the top 4. If you overplay him like we did Emelin, eventually you're going to see cracks in the armor.

So why trade away a 1st or 2nd round pick to keep Benn or Davidson? Let Vegas select one of them if that's who they want and then use that 2nd round pick to go out and trade for another D man of your choosing. Or wait until after the draft and then figure out what Vegas wants to trade the guy back, if you really do want him. At that point, Vegas has got no secret cards and you might be able to negotiate with them a little more clearly. I don't see a need for MB to make a side deal here ahead of the draft. To me, he's going to protect Pacman, Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Danault, Shaw, Byron, and maybe Hudon (if we're lucky) up front and Weber, Petry, and one of Beaulieu or Benn. If we lose Plekanec or Emelin or Davidson or Benn/Beaulieu or DLR or Montoya, then so be it and we move on. Not the end of the world.

Yep. They're not the core players you build a team around. I would like to be able to keep Benn though. I wonder if MB would take a chance and leave Weber exposed due to his salary/contract. He is signed until 2025/2026 at a cap hit of 7.8 mil/yr. That's gonna hurt down the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habs1952 said:

Yep. They're not the core players you build a team around. I would like to be able to keep Benn though. I wonder if MB would take a chance and leave Weber exposed due to his salary/contract. He is signed until 2025/2026 at a cap hit of 7.8 mil/yr. That's gonna hurt down the road. 

I would prefer to protect Beaulieu, unless we have a plan in place to acquire another LD soon. If Benn prefers the right, he isn't going to displace Petry or Weber, so 3rd pairing guy. Beaulieu will at least be able to leapfrog Emelin, so 2nd pairing. Beaulieu is also younger and at least has more trade value right now. Let's keep in mind that we really haven't seen a lot from Benn, as good as he has looked (Weaver?). Luckily, that also means Vegas hasn't seen much from him either.

For Weber, I've said it before. If it wasn't for the optics of having lost Subban for nothing, I would be tempted to expose him.
I think Vegas takes him though. Gives a new fanbase someone to latch onto, as he would likely be the star player and first face of the franchise. The money will eventually become an issue, but there are always ways around that, and silly GMs waiting to make a bad move.

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...