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

2019-20 If i were GM


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Windoe said:

 

  The question remains : did the play-offs give the young guys enough of an experience to know what to expect ? I don't think it hurt but this isn't like a real play-off with 20,000 fans either and lots of travel . I wasn't a fan of maybe winning a round or two just to drop out of sight in the draft .  Top Ten 1st round picks are gold to teams for obvious reasons .  But....this year is different now and it's more likely we won't be "stealing " anybody this year at 16th .  Montreal needs to go after players that will drastically improve the club either through free agency or giving up roster players , prospects and/or  picks in trades while maintaining some standard of youth ....whatever it takes ...Bergevin is in no man's land here with the draft and needs to get creative . What was supposed to be a super draft in Montreal with a lot of decent picks is became far less dramatic so there's no need for a show . Bergevin has shown he's serious with the acquisition of Allen ...but he needs to stay aggressive and find dance partners  ....very last kick at the can for Marc in my opinion .
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, arpem-can said:

 Montreal needs to go after players that will drastically improve the club either through free agency or giving up roster players , prospects and/or  picks in trades while maintaining some standard of youth ....whatever it takes ...Bergevin is in no man's land here with the draft and needs to get creative . What was supposed to be a super draft in Montreal with a lot of decent picks is became far less dramatic so there's no need for a show . Bergevin has shown he's serious with the acquisition of Allen ...but he needs to stay aggressive and find dance partners  ....very last kick at the can for Marc in my opinion .

Agree It is a crucial year for Bergevin’s retention but he does not have easy decisions on the short term vs long term outlook and will be wide open to major criticism as follows:

1) Short-term - Does he really believe that this team plus a couple of pieces and tweaks can be a true contending top 4 conference final team? That would mean giving up something like Danualt/Domi or draft/prospects to get a top LHD or scorer, supplemented by someone like Krug or Hall on that shortfall  - imo there’s still too many question marks on Suzuki, KK and Romanov development that they can carry these expectations with that additional support. We have barely proven this year (not making the playoffs legitimately) and having a playoff round upset, that we are a top 16 team. We should be targeting to be a Competitive top 8 team in 2020-21 by easily making the playoffs 

2) Long term - the Seattle Kraken Draft - which 7 forwards and 3 dmen do we keep? At present we will likely not protect  Kulak, Mete, Juulsen or Fleury on the d side. Depending on forwards resigned, Armia, Weal, And one of Tatar/Gallagher/Domi/Byron/Danault will be exposed. Trade for a dman like Gostisbehere then One of Weber/Petry/Chiarot are not protected. It’s a shame in Carolina where prospects like Jake Bean or Haydn Fleury are behind solid dmen and will be exposed in this draft. Again if we acquire one, we have to ask or settle with Seattle mgmt not to take one of our unprotected players. Youth of first or 2nd year players is your friend. 

3) Short-term vs Long-term on the prospect pool - give up some picks, trade up vs down, give away some prospects for players that can help now? - based on my sentiments in #1, Bergevin should continue to build the youth pool, including trying to acquire another top 40 draft pick for this year (see cap room)

4) Long term / contract extensions - Bergevin has to decide which contracts should be extended either now or risk free agency in 2021. Term and amount and number can cripple a team in terms of ability to manoeuvre. Gallagher, Petry, and Danault seem to have earned it vs roles and expectations. Tatar is an enigma for me in terms of streaky consistency. 
5) Short term vs long term - Use of our 2021 cap room  - is this team worth some free agents now vs. later, or should we acquire some dead contracts  and future youth / picks / prospects

With all these variables in play, Bergevin’s decisions are subject to multiple criticisms, 20-20 hindsight and what ifs - I believe he buys one more year of his contract by focusing his decisions on building full scale competitiveness for 2021-22 (Caufield, Harris, Struble, Norlinder, Primeau) and one more year of maturity in Suzuki, KK, Romanov to supplement the veteran core. At the same time the 2020-2021 team must have a solid upward trajectory into the top 8 teams like conference semi final 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok everyone don't hate me for this but I am about to propose a question that will seem very very sacrilegious. There are three things our forward group desperately needs. Another goal scoring threat, more size and a guy who will stand up for our young players. There one guy in the league who can fill all three holes Would you trade Danault to acquire such a player? The Rangers have an abundance of top 6 wingers and are expected to take Lafreniere this year so here is the sacrilegious part!

Would you trade Danault + 2nd for Krieder + Pajuniemi + 3rd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Ok everyone don't hate me for this but I am about to propose a question that will seem very very sacrilegious. There are three things our forward group desperately needs. Another goal scoring threat, more size and a guy who will stand up for our young players. There one guy in the league who can fill all three holes Would you trade Danault to acquire such a player? The Rangers have an abundance of top 6 wingers and are expected to take Lafreniere this year so here is the sacrilegious part!

Would you trade Danault + 2nd for Krieder + Pajuniemi + 3rd?

you have been banned from posting here. You must no longer associate with this franchise and its fans. 

DELETE! 

No, but seriously, I would move Domi and/or Danault for a winger, but one of the things I want is for the to be a right shot too, other than that I would go after the player that shall go unnamed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, habsisme said:

you have been banned from posting here. You must no longer associate with this franchise and its fans. 

DELETE! 

No, but seriously, I would move Domi and/or Danault for a winger, but one of the things I want is for the to be a right shot too, other than that I would go after the player that shall go unnamed 

LOL it felt dirty typing it out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, claremont said:

2) Long term - the Seattle Kraken Draft - which 7 forwards and 3 dmen do we keep? At present we will likely not protect  Kulak, Mete, Juulsen or Fleury on the d side. Depending on forwards resigned, Armia, Weal, And one of Tatar/Gallagher/Domi/Byron/Danault will be exposed. Trade for a dman like Gostisbehere then One of Weber/Petry/Chiarot are not protected. It’s a shame in Carolina where prospects like Jake Bean or Haydn Fleury are behind solid dmen and will be exposed in this draft. Again if we acquire one, we have to ask or settle with Seattle mgmt not to take one of our unprotected players. Youth of first or 2nd year players is your friend. 

 

A lot can happen in a year, but I don't think we're in a terrible position with respect to the ED as it stands. Here's my view on the current line-up:

- In goal, Carey has a NMC, so he can't be exposed unless he waives it. Primeau doesn't need to be protected. So the only issue is making sure we have a goalie signed who can be exposed, so we don't get penalized. "Worst-case scenario" here would be re-signing Allen to a decent deal and losing him and I doubt that is a major problem. If he plays well, he'll out-price himself as a back-up here anyways, so the only way to keep him in that case would be to trade Price. If Price agrees to go to his wife's home in Seattle, then you probably don't have to worry much about the draft, you just set up a deal with the Kraken so they draft a no-name and in exchange you agree to trade them Price for a nice return and they have their MAF franchise goalie.

- On D, we get to protect 3 guys. The Habs are likely to protect Weber, Petry, and Chiarot as is, which would be a bad move, but it's the most likely course to expect from MB. Personally, I would protect Weber, Petry (assuming he re-signs and is still here) and one of Juulsen/Fleury (whoever seems to be more in the plans by season's end). If you lose Chiarot, who cares. He's a bottom-pairing grinder who is getting older and and can be replaced. Kulak is vastly underrated but again, he's replaceable down the line. Mete also hasn't shown he's more than a 3rd-pairing guy, and Romanov and Brook don't need to be protected. You're hopeful that in 2-3 years, you have at least one of Norlinder/Harris/Struble who can join Romanov on the left side of your D, so frankly, if the Kraken take Chiarot, I'd be laughing the same way I did when Vegas took Emelin. Worst-case scenario on D is for Fleury and Juulsen to both have good years and to lose a guy who might have otherwise been on your back end for 5 years.

- Up front, we're protecting (free agency aside) Gallagher, Danault, Domi, Drouin, Kotkaniemi, Tatar, and Lehkonen probably. I think it's doubtful all those guys are around next year anyways, so this only becomes a problem if MB signs or trades for another forward to replace someone on this list. If he trades them for a forward with less than two years experience it doesn't matter and we get another free player to protect. Suzuki and Ylonen and Poehling and Caufield are all exempt. So the guys we'd be left exposing in this situation would be Byron, Evans, and UFA Armia. Armia's a good player but would Seattle take a risk on him as a UFA? It's a gamble for a 3rd-line player. That leaves them with options who are really 3rd or probably even 4th liners, and I won't lose too much sleep if they take any of those players.

- Lastly, if the Habs do trade for a Laine or Dumba or Jake Bean or whoever else, you're still only ending up with exposing the other one of Juulsen/Fleury on the back end and having one remain here after the ED or you're leaving someone like UFA Tatar exposed, and you could look at dealing him at the trade deadline if you were really that worried. If anything, I think the Habs have spots to spend on protecting key players and could easily use one to acquire a top-end player from another team. Minnesota, for example, has to protect Suter and Spurgeon, who both have NMC's, so they're going to have to trade or lose one of Dumba or Brodin. Or the Canes, as you mentioned have to choose 3 of Slavin, Skjei, Hamilton (UFA), Bean, and Fleury to protect. One or two of those guys could be available in a trade. If you acquire a Dumba or a Jake Bean, for example, then it allows you to expose both Juulsen and Cale Fleury. If you lose one, you still have the other guy, Bean/Dumba, Weber, and Petry (i.e. you have assets left to protect yourself against the repercussions of that loss).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  yes ...a lot can happen in a year ....especially one that carries no guarantees of how long next  season it will be , whether there will be a buy-out  , where the games will be played  and whether players will be accepting less money for the peace of mind a term contract would bring given the flat cap ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

A lot can happen in a year, but I don't think we're in a terrible position with respect to the ED as it stands. Here's my view on the current line-up

- In goal, Carey has a NMC, so he can't be exposed unless he waives it. Primeau doesn't need to be protected. 

- On D, we get to protect 3 guys. The Habs are likely to protect Weber, Petry, and Chiarot as is, which would be a bad move, but it's the most likely course to expect from MB. Personally, I would protect Weber, Petry (assuming he re-signs and is still here) and one of Juulsen/Fleury (whoever seems to be more in the plans by season's end). If you lose Chiarot, who cares. He's a bottom-pairing grinder who is getting older and and can be replaced. Kulak is vastly underrated but again, he's replaceable down the line. Mete also hasn't shown he's more than a 3rd-pairing guy, if the Kraken take Chiarot, I'd be laughing the same way I did when Vegas took Emelin. Worst-case scenario on D is for Fleury and Juulsen to both have good years

- Up front, we're protecting (free agency aside) Gallagher, Danault, Domi, Drouin, Kotkaniemi, Tatar, and Lehkonen probably. I think it's doubtful all those guys are around next year anyways, so this only becomes a problem if MB signs or trades for another forward to replace someone on this list. If he trades them for a forward with less than two years experience it doesn't matter and we get another free player to protect. Suzuki and Ylonen and Poehling and Caufield are all exempt. So the guys we'd be left exposing in this situation would be Byron, Evans, and UFA Armia. Armia's a good player but would Seattle take a risk on him as a UFA? 

- Lastly, if the Habs do trade for a Laine or Dumba or Jake Bean or whoever else, you're still only ending up with exposing the other one of Juulsen/Fleury on the back end and having one remain here after the ED or you're leaving someone like UFA Tatar exposed, and you could look at dealing him at the trade deadline if you were really that worried. If anything, I think the Habs have spots to spend on protecting key players and could easily use one to acquire a top-end player from another team. Minnesota, for example, has to protect Suter and Spurgeon, who both have NMC's, so they're going to have to trade or lose one of Dumba or Brodin. Or the Canes, as you mentioned have to choose 3 of Slavin, Skjei, Hamilton (UFA), Bean, and Fleury to protect. One or two of those guys could be available in a trade. If you acquire a Dumba or a Jake Bean, for example, then it allows you to expose both Juulsen and Cale Fleury. If you lose one, you still have the other guy, Bean/Dumba, Weber, and Petry (i.e. you have assets left to protect yourself against the repercussions of that loss).

Pretty thorough as usual Ted 

Goalie - I think we sign MCNiven or Lindgren to a minor Cheap extension just to offer up a goalie. I would be so surprised that Price would waive his NMC to go to IMO a non-contender like the Kraken, and just play out his string for money and family comfort. I think he has more competitive juice in him than that

D - I think it’s a Kulak vs Chiarot vs Fleury vs Juulsen competition this year to see who gets that 3rd protection spot unless we are able to trade for a higher performing D like Nurse/Klefbom/Dumba/Brodin/Gostisbehere/Krug or even one with more potential like Bean. I really want us to secure that prospect via cap room use such as a Dobson, Broberg, Byram, York, Harley which gives more depth vs a player claimed. Or another top 40 draft pick - wishful thinking. In any event, there’s quite a few good dMen about to be exposed by other teams to the Kraken so I think they take one of our forwards 

Fwd - we are obligated to provide 2 forwards who played 40 games or a total of 70 over the last 2 seasons- let’s hope Byron can play 31 games - he is likely one of them. Fast but he can’t score with any consistency and is expendable.  Weal would sign a 1 year extension in a heartbeat, just to keep his career going but I think we will qualify an RFA offer to Evans. If I were the Kraken, I’d take Byron over Evans and likely ahead of our D exposed. If we got someone like Hall in free agency, and kept/signed Domi/Tatar, Lehkonen is in this mix. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, claremont said:

Pretty thorough as usual Ted 

Goalie - I think we sign MCNiven or Lindgren to a minor Cheap extension just to offer up a goalie. I would be so surprised that Price would waive his NMC to go to IMO a non-contender like the Kraken, and just play out his string for money and family comfort. I think he has more competitive juice in him than that

D - I think it’s a Kulak vs Chiarot vs Fleury vs Juulsen competition this year to see who gets that 3rd protection spot unless we are able to trade for a higher performing D like Nurse/Klefbom/Dumba/Brodin/Gostisbehere/Krug or even one with more potential like Bean. I really want us to secure that prospect via cap room use such as a Dobson, Broberg, Byram, York, Harley which gives more depth vs a player claimed. Or another top 40 draft pick - wishful thinking. In any event, there’s quite a few good dMen about to be exposed by other teams to the Kraken so I think they take one of our forwards 

Fwd - we are obligated to provide 2 forwards who played 40 games or a total of 70 over the last 2 seasons- let’s hope Byron can play 31 games - he is likely one of them. Fast but he can’t score with any consistency and is expendable.  Weal would sign a 1 year extension in a heartbeat, just to keep his career going but I think we will qualify an RFA offer to Evans. If I were the Kraken, I’d take Byron over Evans and likely ahead of our D exposed. If we got someone like Hall in free agency, and kept/signed Domi/Tatar, Lehkonen is in this mix. 

To touch on a few points you raised:

- I would also be surprised if Price waived his NMC, but I've seen stranger things. He's a quiet person, and he has a bunch of kids now, and I don't think he and his wife would dismiss the value of being closer to their families. MAF waived his NMC to go to Vegas and while one could argue Fleury was in the process of losing his starting job if he didn't go, Price has the added bonus of having seen Vegas become a powerhouse right away. So he might think he can backstop Seattle just as well as Fleury did for Vegas. It's potentially a solution that could work for all parties... Price plays close to home, Seattle gets its franchise core player, and the Habs get out from his contract and have a bridge in Allen to get to Primeau as the new starter. Habs aren't giving him away though, so Seattle would have to be willing to offer up value that they've acquired elsewhere to make it happen.

- Agreed on the D battle you described. Most of the prospects you listed wouldn't need to be protected though, so they'd be free to add to our list of safe players.

- Up front, the 40/70 rule is interesting because it comes from the Vegas draft. But if the next season gets cut down the way the past one did, maybe the requirements will drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I would also be surprised if Price waived his NMC, but I've seen stranger things

  another option is Vancouver ....close to Seattle and both families ...that would be an interesting trade ...... both Canuck goalies performed pretty well ...Price's age and contract are definitely concerns but like you said stranger things ...I wouldn't be opposed to it if it strengthened the club  ....food for thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, arpem-can said:

  another option is Vancouver ....close to Seattle and both families ...that would be an interesting trade ...... both Canuck goalies performed pretty well ...Price's age and contract are definitely concerns but like you said stranger things ...I wouldn't be opposed to it if it strengthened the club  ....food for thought

My question would be "what is Vancouver giving up in a trade to us though"? If we're trading Price, it's because we are pushing back our Cup window a bit, so we're going to want younger prospects/players or picks. They're not giving us Boeser or Hughes or Pettersson. They're probably not giving up a 1st rounder. So while I can see Price maybe being a fit for them, they don't really have what we want. Comparatively, Seattle's in a position to wheel and deal like Vegas did and pick up some younger players or extra picks that they could trade us. Barring trades, Colorado would have to expose someone like Jost or Kamenev and someone like Ryan Graves. Minnesota would have to expose one of Brodin or Dumba. Carolina one of Fleury or Bean and so on. So there could be players of interest for us to look at acquiring, in addition to a deal maybe protecting us from losing a player we don't want to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buyouts of player contracts can occur 48 hours after after the Stanley Cup is awarded - never mind our Alzner deal but here are five scenarios whereby Habs could acquire a dead contract and buy out the player under our cap room in exchange for a little used player or remote prospect similar to the Steve Mason/Armia deal for Simon Bourque a few years ago - lets say our throw away is Alex Belzile

1) Washington - tight for cap room at $10.4m and likely desperate for one more run with Ovechkin in an expiring contract - have to replace Holtby plus upgrade their LHD to have any improvement. RHD Nick Jensen is a significant underperformer. His buyout would be $5.3m spread over 6 years. The caps don’t have much assets to give beside their late first round draft choice or Connor McMichael- the savings of $2.5 vs $1.3m if they did it themselves, don’t seem to be there for Washington 

2) Islanders - $8.1 in cap room and have to sign Barzal as a UFA plus Ryan Pulock and Devon Toews. Andrew Ladd is dead weight with a useless contract at $5.5m for the next 3 years. His cap hit to Mtl would be considerable at $4.8m for the next 3 years unless some salary is retained. Islanders have no draft picks to trade but have RHD Noah Dobson or LHD Samuel Bolduc to dangle. Expensive!
3) Pittsburgh $12.4m of cap room Assuming Bjugstad back from LTIR and need a premier goalie plus some defence upgrades. LHD Jack Johnson is a waste of space at $3.25 m for next 3 years. Buyout is $7m Spread over the next 6 years. Penguins have no draft choices to trade and only real prospect is LW Samuel Poulin.

4) Arizona $6.4m with Hossa LTIR relief. Not really improving that team as handcuffed by a few contracts. Need to replace combined 33g, 54a 87 point contributions of Carl Soderberg Taylor Hall. Kessel contract $6.25 m for next 2 years - one bad year so may not be dead weight. The beauty of a Kessel buyout is some of it hits the leafs. More likely is Nicklaus Hjalmarsson $5m per year but our cap his would be $3.7m. alternatively Jason Demers with less cap hit. Problem is Arizona has nothing to give - no draft picks and only prospect is RHD Victor Soderstrom 

5j St. Louis Blues - $6.4m of cap room - lost Boumeister and likely to lose Pietrangelo and need a cheap backup goalie vs their previous team. Alex Steen is in decline. cap hit to habs $3.4m this year, $1.2m next. Blues could give their late first round pick as they have no prospects of interest.
NMC and NTC have no exemptions from buyouts. I would be inclined to negotiate with the Blues maybe the Islanders if they retained some salary. Unfortunately there are some other teams with cap room that we would be competing against. 

all other teams that had bloated underperforming player contracts like Alzner, appear to have sufficient cap room to execute their own buyouts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

My question would be "what is Vancouver giving up in a trade to us though"? If we're trading Price, it's because we are pushing back our Cup window a bit, so we're going to want younger prospects/players or picks. They're not giving us Boeser or Hughes or Pettersson. They're probably not giving up a 1st rounder. So while I can see Price maybe being a fit for them, they don't really have what we want. Comparatively, Seattle's in a position to wheel and deal like Vegas did and pick up some younger players or extra picks that they could trade us. Barring trades, Colorado would have to expose someone like Jost or Kamenev and someone like Ryan Graves. Minnesota would have to expose one of Brodin or Dumba. Carolina one of Fleury or Bean and so on. So there could be players of interest for us to look at acquiring, in addition to a deal maybe protecting us from losing a player we don't want to...

  Horvat ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, claremont said:

Buyouts of player contracts can occur 48 hours after after the Stanley Cup is awarded - never mind our Alzner deal but here are five scenarios whereby Habs could acquire a dead contract and buy out the player under our cap room in exchange for a little used player or remote prospect similar to the Steve Mason/Armia deal for Simon Bourque a few years ago - lets say our throw away is Alex Belzile

1) Washington - tight for cap room at $10.4m and likely desperate for one more run with Ovechkin in an expiring contract - have to replace Holtby plus upgrade their LHD to have any improvement. RHD Nick Jensen is a significant underperformer. His buyout would be $5.3m spread over 6 years. The caps don’t have much assets to give beside their late first round draft choice or Connor McMichael- the savings of $2.5 vs $1.3m if they did it themselves, don’t seem to be there for Washington 

2) Islanders - $8.1 in cap room and have to sign Barzal as a UFA plus Ryan Pulock and Devon Toews. Andrew Ladd is dead weight with a useless contract at $5.5m for the next 3 years. His cap hit to Mtl would be considerable at $4.8m for the next 3 years unless some salary is retained. Islanders have no draft picks to trade but have RHD Noah Dobson or LHD Samuel Bolduc to dangle. Expensive!
3) Pittsburgh $12.4m of cap room Assuming Bjugstad back from LTIR and need a premier goalie plus some defence upgrades. LHD Jack Johnson is a waste of space at $3.25 m for next 3 years. Buyout is $7m Spread over the next 6 years. Penguins have no draft choices to trade and only real prospect is LW Samuel Poulin.

4) Arizona $6.4m with Hossa LTIR relief. Not really improving that team as handcuffed by a few contracts. Need to replace combined 33g, 54a 87 point contributions of Carl Soderberg Taylor Hall. Kessel contract $6.25 m for next 2 years - one bad year so may not be dead weight. The beauty of a Kessel buyout is some of it hits the leafs. More likely is Nicklaus Hjalmarsson $5m per year but our cap his would be $3.7m. alternatively Jason Demers with less cap hit. Problem is Arizona has nothing to give - no draft picks and only prospect is RHD Victor Soderstrom 

5j St. Louis Blues - $6.4m of cap room - lost Boumeister and likely to lose Pietrangelo and need a cheap backup goalie vs their previous team. Alex Steen is in decline. cap hit to habs $3.4m this year, $1.2m next. Blues could give their late first round pick as they have no prospects of interest.
NMC and NTC have no exemptions from buyouts. I would be inclined to negotiate with the Blues maybe the Islanders if they retained some salary. Unfortunately there are some other teams with cap room that we would be competing against. 

all other teams that had bloated underperforming player contracts like Alzner, appear to have sufficient cap room to execute their own buyouts. 

I'm all for taking on bad contracts, but I wouldnt do it unless it was an expiring deal, where maybe we  wouldn't even have to buy it out. Next year we wont have much cap space to work with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, habsisme said:

I'm all for taking on bad contracts, but I wouldnt do it unless it was an expiring deal, where maybe we  wouldn't even have to buy it out. Next year we wont have much cap space to work with

Mostly agree.

The other option is if you took on a contract that was bad - but the player was still usable. Nobody wants a Karl Alzner (not nhl quality anymore) but a guy who's paid like a 1st liner but is more like a 2nd might be worth looking at.

Some of the names mentioned (Steen for example) would be a pretty tiny cap hit in 2 years so we'd be ok there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Mostly agree.

The other option is if you took on a contract that was bad - but the player was still usable. Nobody wants a Karl Alzner (not nhl quality anymore) but a guy who's paid like a 1st liner but is more like a 2nd might be worth looking at.
Some of the names mentioned (Steen for example) would be a pretty tiny cap hit in 2 years so we'd be ok there. 

A point (Steen, Ladd, Jensen, Johnson etc,)  that I was trying to make is that the use of your Unused cap can have value in acquiring a prospect. The use of cap room does not all have to be about acquiring FA’s like Krug, Hall, TJ Brodie, Hamonic especially when that FA won’t take your team to the super level - Detroit would be crazy to sign a high level FA. We are not quite the dead things but we are not at the top 8 level where a FA pushes us into the final 4. If we can use cap room at the $2m, 3M level to acquire a top draft pick or an emerging prospect for the future like the Mason/Armia for Bourque deal,  it may not be a bad investment as you have a cheap entry level RFA commitment vs  the typical 3-5 yr High $ contract. 
Let’s put it this way - do you want 2-3 FA’s like $3.5m Chiarot or for lower money do you want a couple of First round picks or Noah Dobson / Victor Sodorstrom via cap room swap for dead contract buyouts?

the downside is the prospects you acquire are also gambles to pan out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was just watching a Legorocks vid on YouTube that was breaking down a bunch of Cunucks tweets and speculations, a couple of things popped out at me. One was that the Nucks may be looking to drop some dead weight. Second was that they might not be looking to re-sign Virtanen. Personally, I’ve liked Virtanen since Jr. What if we were to take on Ericsson’s contract along with Virtanen, buy out Ericsson? Virtanen’s got some skills, can score, has an edge to his game and plays RW. I’d be interested in seeing what he could do on a line with Suzuki and Drouin, any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

Was just watching a Legorocks vid on YouTube that was breaking down a bunch of Cunucks tweets and speculations, a couple of things popped out at me. One was that the Nucks may be looking to drop some dead weight. Second was that they might not be looking to re-sign Virtanen. Personally, I’ve liked Virtanen since Jr. What if we were to take on Ericsson’s contract along with Virtanen, buy out Ericsson? Virtanen’s got some skills, can score, has an edge to his game and plays RW. I’d be interested in seeing what he could do on a line with Suzuki and Drouin, any thoughts?

Not convinced Virtanen will ever be the "power forward" the nucks hoped for when they took him in the top 10 (6th ova I think?) but at worst he's a 35 point middle six guy. He's Armia with better use of his frame (at least offensively).   Can he be more? Maybe.  Is it worth taking a chance on him? Possibly, depending upon cost. 

Eriksson  has 2 more years left at $6m i believe.  A buyout would be $5.6m this year, $3.6m next year, 666k the following 2 years...

I guess if you really felt strongly about Virtanen its worth it but there's definitely some risk. The biggest is probably that Julien would want to play "good two way vet"  Eriksson :4224: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Not convinced Virtanen will ever be the "power forward" the nucks hoped for when they took him in the top 10 (6th ova I think?) but at worst he's a 35 point middle six guy. He's Armia with better use of his frame (at least offensively).   Can he be more? Maybe.  Is it worth taking a chance on him? Possibly, depending upon cost. 

Eriksson  has 2 more years left at $6m i believe.  A buyout would be $5.6m this year, $3.6m next year, 666k the following 2 years...

I guess if you really felt strongly about Virtanen its worth it but there's definitely some risk. The biggest is probably that Julien would want to play "good two way vet"  Eriksson :4224: 

I think your probably right, in that he likely won’t reach the potential that he looked to have in his draft year. But I do think he could be a consistent 20 goal scorer. Something like this would compare really well with the deal that landed us Armia. 
lol you also might be right about Julien :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I would doubt Vancouver would trade its 25 year-old leader whom they just named captain this year... as I said, Vancouver has no real reason to break up its young core. They want to add to it not subtract.

    I doubt it too ...only one not named Boeser , Hughes or Pettersson in the Price conversation earlier 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given we have so many unrestricted free agents coming up at the end of 2020-21, I was wondering what your opinion is on a few of them. I feel like most will expect Gallagher to be resigned, but I assume we all have our limits on what Brendan is worth. With Danault mentioning he would be unhappy in a defensive role, is he now expendable? I know a lot of what we might end of doing will be based on our capacity to make the post-season. However, I'm leaning towards us NOT making it next season. Not unless we see significant changes made before the beginning of 2020-21.

Brendan Gallagher: Brendan will be 29 when his current contract ends. I would look to resign him, but I have my limits. I'd offer him 5-6 years with an AAV of between $5-6 million. Will that be enough to lock him up?

Tomas Tatar: I'd move on from Tomas. I'd be looking to deal him at the deadline if we're out of the picture.

Phillip Danault: If Phillip isn't going to be happy playing behind Suzuki and Kotkaniemi, I think we need to cash in while his value is at its peak. Resigning him sounds like it would entail investing too much money in a third line center. Despite being an excellent defensive center who can put up some points, I think his skill-set can probably be replaced the following year through a combination of Suzuki and Kotkaniemi's development and finding a cheaper third line option.

Joel Armia: Trade deadline for me. I like Joel. But... If he has another good season, I think we should cash in on him at the deadline.

Jordan Weal: Nothing really to discuss here. I definitely don't want to see Weal back with the club in 2021-22.

Jeff Petry: At 33, I cannot see it being a good idea to resign him. He's probably going to want 3-4 years. Especially so, considering I have zero expectations of Bergevin moving Weber. I, personally, see Petry as having more value to us than Weber, but I don't think we can move forward over the next few years with two aging right-handers on the back-end. I would look to move Petry before the deadline if we're not in the picture.

Jake Allen: Similar to Weal. He's a one-year back-up while Primeau continues his development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Given we have so many unrestricted free agents coming up at the end of 2020-21, I was wondering what your opinion is on a few of them. I feel like most will expect Gallagher to be resigned, but I assume we all have our limits on what Brendan is worth. With Danault mentioning he would be unhappy in a defensive role, is he now expendable? I know a lot of what we might end of doing will be based on our capacity to make the post-season. However, I'm leaning towards us NOT making it next season. Not unless we see significant changes made before the beginning of 2020-21.

Brendan Gallagher: Brendan will be 29 when his current contract ends. I would look to resign him, but I have my limits. I'd offer him 5-6 years with an AAV of between $5-6 million. Will that be enough to lock him up?

Tomas Tatar: I'd move on from Tomas. I'd be looking to deal him at the deadline if we're out of the picture.

Phillip Danault: If Phillip isn't going to be happy playing behind Suzuki and Kotkaniemi, I think we need to cash in while his value is at its peak. Resigning him sounds like it would entail investing too much money in a third line center. Despite being an excellent defensive center who can put up some points, I think his skill-set can probably be replaced the following year through a combination of Suzuki and Kotkaniemi's development and finding a cheaper third line option.

Joel Armia: Trade deadline for me. I like Joel. But... If he has another good season, I think we should cash in on him at the deadline.

Jordan Weal: Nothing really to discuss here. I definitely don't want to see Weal back with the club in 2021-22.

Jeff Petry: At 33, I cannot see it being a good idea to resign him. He's probably going to want 3-4 years. Especially so, considering I have zero expectations of Bergevin moving Weber. I, personally, see Petry as having more value to us than Weber, but I don't think we can move forward over the next few years with two aging right-handers on the back-end. I would look to move Petry before the deadline if we're not in the picture.

Jake Allen: Similar to Weal. He's a one-year back-up while Primeau continues his development.

I would definitely want to resign Gallagher. He is a leader and a heart and sole player that motivates the team. It will depend on how he does this next season. I would be okay at around 5.5 to 6.5 per year depending on the length of contract.

Tatar it also depends , if Drouin doesn't take the next step especially if he plays with Suzuki, then I think we may need to resign him. 

I would definitely see how well Suzuki and especially JK progress this season before thinking Danualt is expendable. He again was our second leading scorer used killing penalties taking the majority of defensive zone face offs and playing against the top competition all while getting very little Power Play time and being a plus player. I think Suzuki , who already kills penalties and makes smart decisions will be good moving forward. I'm not totally sold yet on JK being able to fill that role yet. Also depending on what happens with Domi. There is no reason we can't have three strong centers and utilize them all without having to put Danault in a completely defensive role. Also if we move on from Danault we end up weak if Suzuki or JK gets injured. JK already hasn't played a full season yet? Depth especially down the middle is a good thing.  

I also would have no problem resigning Petry. His skating ability is great. I don't think even into 36-37 he'll be fine. 

I also think we may a shot at making the playoffs next season. If we don't it will be then because Suzuki has a sophomore slump. Teams know him now and if JK does develop like we all hope we should make the playoffs. If he doesn't then we have another issue all over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Given we have so many unrestricted free agents coming up at the end of 2020-21, I was wondering what your opinion is on a few of them. I feel like most will expect Gallagher to be resigned, but I assume we all have our limits on what Brendan is worth. With Danault mentioning he would be unhappy in a defensive role, is he now expendable? I know a lot of what we might end of doing will be based on our capacity to make the post-season. However, I'm leaning towards us NOT making it next season. Not unless we see significant changes made before the beginning of 2020-21.

Brendan Gallagher: Brendan will be 29 when his current contract ends. I would look to resign him, but I have my limits. I'd offer him 5-6 years with an AAV of between $5-6 million. Will that be enough to lock him up?

Tomas Tatar: I'd move on from Tomas. I'd be looking to deal him at the deadline if we're out of the picture.

Phillip Danault: If Phillip isn't going to be happy playing behind Suzuki and Kotkaniemi, I think we need to cash in while his value is at its peak. Resigning him sounds like it would entail investing too much money in a third line center. Despite being an excellent defensive center who can put up some points, I think his skill-set can probably be replaced the following year through a combination of Suzuki and Kotkaniemi's development and finding a cheaper third line option.

Joel Armia: Trade deadline for me. I like Joel. But... If he has another good season, I think we should cash in on him at the deadline.

Jordan Weal: Nothing really to discuss here. I definitely don't want to see Weal back with the club in 2021-22.

Jeff Petry: At 33, I cannot see it being a good idea to resign him. He's probably going to want 3-4 years. Especially so, considering I have zero expectations of Bergevin moving Weber. I, personally, see Petry as having more value to us than Weber, but I don't think we can move forward over the next few years with two aging right-handers on the back-end. I would look to move Petry before the deadline if we're not in the picture.

Jake Allen: Similar to Weal. He's a one-year back-up while Primeau continues his development.

It is increasingly becoming a young man's game and the locking up of 5-6 year contracts just handcuffs a team. It seems to me that term of 5-6 years should only be given to players at age 23-26 coming off RFA years, and for those you feel are certainly part of your core. So many teams have immovable contracts now, and those NMC's or NTC's are killer restrictions. Certainly the 7 Forwards  3 D and 1 goalie expansion draft is also a consideration. 

Answering your Question - Gallagher - yes but with your restrictions - but probably 4 years. Tatar - depends upon performance this year but he isn't getting much term beyond 3 years from me as a GM. Danualt - I don't take his comments as whining - he was the #1 centre on the scoring line and has some pride/competitiveness however he may be #3 centre depending on Suzuki and KK performance. He still has leadership value but he's not getting 5-6 year term or high $ - Look how much the Blues overpaid for his comparable in Bozak. I am not a fan of Evans but you are right - we need to find a 3rd centre. If there is a better retrun value for Danualt vs. Domi - trade Danualt, keep Domi. Armia - too inconsistent and an enigma for me - he may get claimed by the Kraken over Byron. Weal - done with him - another reclamation "hope" project by Bergevin - never materialized. Petry - resign him now - he keeps himself in shape, has not had many injuries. Good leader for the team. I would resign Petry for 3 more years. Allen - unless he has a stellar year, and Price's virtually immoveable contract is assumed by another team, Allen becomes just a goalie in waiting for Primeau. Charles Hudon, I could move on from in a heartbeat.

Our 7 forward 3 D 1 Goalie Protected list for the ED Kraken Draft with assumed resigning of our own free agents becomes Drouin, Kotkanieimi, Gallagher, Lehkonen, Domi or Danualt (1 - depending on who is traded), Byron, Tatar (or whoever we get as an equivalent high level forward). Armia IMO is left exposed and we have to have one other forward who has 70 games over the last 2 seasons as exposed, so it depends on acquisitions (Hall ?), or it becomes Byron. The 3 D protected are Weber, Petry, and either Chiarot or Kulak at this point. Goalie is automatic as Price has an NMC.

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...