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

Cole "Goal" Caufield


campabee82
 Share

Recommended Posts

Personally I have not seen anyone come to this team other than Patches that I felt was a true scoring threat for about 15 years or so. Chucky might have had a shot at it but his family and how the team handled him ruined what he may have become the team in place now let the players play unlike the last bunch so I have no doubt he will get the job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, KRH said:

I would try and sign Caufield for 8 years at about 7 million per.  If he is at a peak, playing exceptionally well, in the 7th or 8th year of the contract, I would trade him for a good haul, try to find the next Caufield or the next Suzuki.

And, I would do the same for almost every good or great player on the team.  Trade them when they are reaching 28 - 30 years of age, playing at or near their peak, before the decline starts.  For instance, Gallagher should have been traded two years ago.  We would have garnered a very good return for him two years ago.  What are we getting now?

There are exceptions, but this is the road I would go down in most instances.

Ovechkin should be traded now, or last year, for a good haul.  Malkin should have been traded a year or so ago.  Teams fall in love with players.  Trade them at their peak, when the returns are amazing.

You get my drift.

It's easy to say trade Ovie now, but by your standards you would of traded Ovie at 28? Really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CaptWelly said:

It's easy to say trade Ovie now, but by your standards you would of traded Ovie at 28? Really!

same when people talk about Price. I understand Gallagher, we should have moved him or let him walk probably (I mean in hindsight its a certainty). Good players, you should probably walk away from if you have to have years when they're in their 30s but you can't walk away from elite talent like Price... and perhaps one day we will say the same about Caufield or Suzuki (or Wright). If Caufield is scoring 40+ goals at the end of his contract, you re-sign him obviously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habsisme said:

same when people talk about Price. I understand Gallagher, we should have moved him or let him walk probably (I mean in hindsight its a certainty). Good players, you should probably walk away from if you have to have years when they're in their 30s but you can't walk away from elite talent like Price... and perhaps one day we will say the same about Caufield or Suzuki (or Wright). If Caufield is scoring 40+ goals at the end of his contract, you re-sign him obviously

The generational players (Crosby, Ovie) make sense to lock up into their late 30s: even if they lose a step, if they can stay healthy, they should be pretty effective. 

I think Price is actually more of a cautionary example. He was a very good goalie, the best in the league a couple of years, but he didn't do it consistently enough where I'd consider him a generational talent. Those are the second contracts that really put you in a tough spot. Letting Gallagher go wouldn't have been easy, but it wouldn't have been particularly hard. Letting Price go when he was still in his prime would have been hard , but in hindsight probably the right decision. There's plenty of other players in a similar camp, I mean the Norris winners from 2012-2017 is a list of cautionary tales of how quickly great players can fall off a cliff.

  Of course, the problem is you can't know in advance who is going to buck the trend and maintain their value, and letting a great player go if they won't agree to a shorter-term deal, even if statistically likely to be the right long term decision, is hard and feels risky to the GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Graeme-1 said:

The generational players (Crosby, Ovie) make sense to lock up into their late 30s: even if they lose a step, if they can stay healthy, they should be pretty effective. 

I think Price is actually more of a cautionary example. He was a very good goalie, the best in the league a couple of years, but he didn't do it consistently enough where I'd consider him a generational talent. Those are the second contracts that really put you in a tough spot. Letting Gallagher go wouldn't have been easy, but it wouldn't have been particularly hard. Letting Price go when he was still in his prime would have been hard , but in hindsight probably the right decision. There's plenty of other players in a similar camp, I mean the Norris winners from 2012-2017 is a list of cautionary tales of how quickly great players can fall off a cliff.

  Of course, the problem is you can't know in advance who is going to buck the trend and maintain their value, and letting a great player go if they won't agree to a shorter-term deal, even if statistically likely to be the right long term decision, is hard and feels risky to the GM.

True enough and that experience come playoff time can be huge. ROR and Stamkos are both having great playoffs. Players like Yzerman Sakic and a host of others didn't win cups until late into their careers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

The generational players (Crosby, Ovie) make sense to lock up into their late 30s: even if they lose a step, if they can stay healthy, they should be pretty effective. 

I think Price is actually more of a cautionary example. He was a very good goalie, the best in the league a couple of years, but he didn't do it consistently enough where I'd consider him a generational talent. Those are the second contracts that really put you in a tough spot. Letting Gallagher go wouldn't have been easy, but it wouldn't have been particularly hard. Letting Price go when he was still in his prime would have been hard , but in hindsight probably the right decision. There's plenty of other players in a similar camp, I mean the Norris winners from 2012-2017 is a list of cautionary tales of how quickly great players can fall off a cliff.

  Of course, the problem is you can't know in advance who is going to buck the trend and maintain their value, and letting a great player go if they won't agree to a shorter-term deal, even if statistically likely to be the right long term decision, is hard and feels risky to the GM.

There's also a difference for a team to lock up a Price of Ovi through their 30s when they're close to winning vs. if they're not. Let's say a team like Tampa, Toronto, Florida, Colorado, or so on is a perennial top 5-8 team in the league and feel they have a legit chance to win a Cup for the next 3-4 years running. In that case, maybe you're willing to sign a bad long-term contract because you know that player keeps you in contention for the front half of that deal. If you would have told me the Habs would have a 25% chance at winning a Cup for the first 5 years with Price on board but that we'd be paying him 10M a year in years 6 through 8 when we're not that competitive, I'd probably take that deal. It's still a better plan than letting Price walk, running Montembeault as your goalie for years 1 to 4 and not being competitive in any of those seasons. So IMO, it's okay to reach on a bad deal if it secures you a guy through the end of his prime and you're competitive for several years because of it. Where it doesn't make sense is being a middling team and then overpaying to be mediocre now only to be further handicapped by the cap hit in the future (as it looks like might happen to us with Gallagher).

In my view, the first priority is to identify what your window to win is. In our case, our core is probably now going to be built around Suzuki, Caufield, Harris, Romanov, Barron, Guhle, Ylonen, whoever our 1st overall pick is this year, etc. So when do you have all those guys still in their prime but good enough to win? Maybe 3-4 years from now. So that's what the goal should be: to find guys who are signed to reasonable deals at that time, from say 2025-2028. It means it's probably okay to hold onto Jeff Petry's contract and not have that hinder our Cup window. It means it's unlikely we'll be too hurt by Paul Byron or Joel Armia down the line. But Gallagher's contract is a huge albatross. Price's could be harmful depending on whether he "retires" or not. But a good GM would try to get out of Gallagher's deal ahead of all else. A good GM would try to trade those vets who won't be useful to us in 2025 for futures that will be. So dealing a Toffoli for a 1st rounder this year and a Heineman makes sense. Dealing Lehkonen for a Barron makes sense, because Lehkonen in 2025-28 would likely be a 3rd liner making 5M a year. I think as long as we have that vision then we'll be fine. If it happens that in the summer of 2024, we have the opportunity to sign a big-name 28 year-old UFA to a 7-year deal and we think that player will still be strong from 2024 to 2028, then that's fine by me. I don't mind that move AT THAT TIME because it aligns with your identified window to win. The Gallagher contract does not. That's the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

It's easy to say trade Ovie now, but by your standards you would of traded Ovie at 28? Really!

Caufield and Ovechkin aren't even in the same class ... Caufield you sign for 8 years and depending on your team/success you trade him in years 7 or 8 for a haul if picks he's been getting 35-40 a year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

There's also a difference for a team to lock up a Price of Ovi through their 30s when they're close to winning vs. if they're not. Let's say a team like Tampa, Toronto, Florida, Colorado, or so on is a perennial top 5-8 team in the league and feel they have a legit chance to win a Cup for the next 3-4 years running. In that case, maybe you're willing to sign a bad long-term contract because you know that player keeps you in contention for the front half of that deal. If you would have told me the Habs would have a 25% chance at winning a Cup for the first 5 years with Price on board but that we'd be paying him 10M a year in years 6 through 8 when we're not that competitive, I'd probably take that deal. It's still a better plan than letting Price walk, running Montembeault as your goalie for years 1 to 4 and not being competitive in any of those seasons. So IMO, it's okay to reach on a bad deal if it secures you a guy through the end of his prime and you're competitive for several years because of it. Where it doesn't make sense is being a middling team and then overpaying to be mediocre now only to be further handicapped by the cap hit in the future (as it looks like might happen to us with Gallagher).

In my view, the first priority is to identify what your window to win is. In our case, our core is probably now going to be built around Suzuki, Caufield, Harris, Romanov, Barron, Guhle, Ylonen, whoever our 1st overall pick is this year, etc. So when do you have all those guys still in their prime but good enough to win? Maybe 3-4 years from now. So that's what the goal should be: to find guys who are signed to reasonable deals at that time, from say 2025-2028. It means it's probably okay to hold onto Jeff Petry's contract and not have that hinder our Cup window. It means it's unlikely we'll be too hurt by Paul Byron or Joel Armia down the line. But Gallagher's contract is a huge albatross. Price's could be harmful depending on whether he "retires" or not. But a good GM would try to get out of Gallagher's deal ahead of all else. A good GM would try to trade those vets who won't be useful to us in 2025 for futures that will be. So dealing a Toffoli for a 1st rounder this year and a Heineman makes sense. Dealing Lehkonen for a Barron makes sense, because Lehkonen in 2025-28 would likely be a 3rd liner making 5M a year. I think as long as we have that vision then we'll be fine. If it happens that in the summer of 2024, we have the opportunity to sign a big-name 28 year-old UFA to a 7-year deal and we think that player will still be strong from 2024 to 2028, then that's fine by me. I don't mind that move AT THAT TIME because it aligns with your identified window to win. The Gallagher contract does not. That's the difference.

Definitely we should try to move Gallagher but I don't see it as that big an albatros. He's overpaid but I still think even in 3-4years, Gallagher would have value to competitive team still. But yeah if you can move him, I'm not really worried about compensation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, HabsAlways said:

Caufield and Ovechkin aren't even in the same class ... Caufield you sign for 8 years and depending on your team/success you trade him in years 7 or 8 for a haul if picks he's been getting 35-40 a year

Well we really don't know that they aren't yet! Same was said about our current coach MSL small not even drafted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

Well we really don't know that they aren't yet! Same was said about our current coach MSL small not even drafted. 

Ovechkin is a generational goal scorer ... there is a non-zero chance Caufield is a generational goal scorer.    I made no comment about his size, but his ability.   He'll be a good 35-40 goal guy, maybe 50 ... but not Ovechkin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HabsAlways said:

Ovechkin is a generational goal scorer ... there is a non-zero chance Caufield is a generational goal scorer.    I made no comment about his size, but his ability.   He'll be a good 35-40 goal guy, maybe 50 ... but not Ovechkin

Agree.  Is it possible Caufield turns into one of the best goal scorers in the league? Maybe. But Ovechkin is one of the best Goal Scorers of all time. Many say #1 (i still have bossy and gretz ahead of him but its close).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Agree.  Is it possible Caufield turns into one of the best goal scorers in the league? Maybe. But Ovechkin is one of the best Goal Scorers of all time. Many say #1 (i still have bossy and gretz ahead of him but its close).

 

yeah only person we could currenly compare to Ovechkin is Matthews, and its take quite a few years of goal scoring to be even considered as heir of some kind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, maas_art said:

Agree.  Is it possible Caufield turns into one of the best goal scorers in the league? Maybe. But Ovechkin is one of the best Goal Scorers of all time. Many say #1 (i still have bossy and gretz ahead of him but its close).

 

Indeed. Ovechkin has a shot to surpass Gretzky (114 goals to go) and become the most productive NHL goal-scorer of all-time. That is absolutely remarkable. Caulfield will not even come close to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Indeed. Ovechkin has a shot to surpass Gretzky (114 goals to go) and become the most productive NHL goal-scorer of all-time. That is absolutely remarkable. Caulfield will not even come close to this.

The crazy thing about Ovechkin is his ability to play at this level at his age. Gretzky had a 92 goal season but never broke 40 goals in his 30s! In fact, despite having 4 years in a row at over 70 goals in his prime, Gretz only broke 30 twice in his 30s.   Ovechkin is 36 years old and just had a 50 goal season! 

I still think its unlikely Ovie will break Gretzkys record but he's certainly the only guy who's ever come close to being in discussion to be able to truly do it. For a while people thought Hull might be able to do it - 3 straight 70 goal seasons including an 86 goal monster year, but he faded fast in his 30s mostly only having 30 and 40 goal seasons.

The fact Ovechkin can still score at this pace at his age is, frankly, remarkable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, maas_art said:

The crazy thing about Ovechkin is his ability to play at this level at his age. Gretzky had a 92 goal season but never broke 40 goals in his 30s! In fact, despite having 4 years in a row at over 70 goals in his prime, Gretz only broke 30 twice in his 30s.   Ovechkin is 36 years old and just had a 50 goal season! 

I still think its unlikely Ovie will break Gretzkys record but he's certainly the only guy who's ever come close to being in discussion to be able to truly do it. For a while people thought Hull might be able to do it - 3 straight 70 goal seasons including an 86 goal monster year, but he faded fast in his 30s mostly only having 30 and 40 goal seasons.

The fact Ovechkin can still score at this pace at his age is, frankly, remarkable.  

Ovie definitely does have a shot at breaking the record.a lot of it will depend on how many more years he plays. He has stayed mostly healthy throughout also. He probably would of broken the record for sure but between lockouts and shortened seasons has made it tougher. I'm not counting him out yet, as he gets closer gives him more reason to continue to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CaptWelly said:

Ovie definitely does have a shot at breaking the record.a lot of it will depend on how many more years he plays. He has stayed mostly healthy throughout also. He probably would of broken the record for sure but between lockouts and shortened seasons has made it tougher. I'm not counting him out yet, as he gets closer gives him more reason to continue to play.

I hope he can do it. Would be nice to see someone overtake Gretzky in goals scored since no one will ever touch his point total record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to bring politics into it, but I've soured on celebrating Ovechkin's accomplishment because of who he chooses to associate himself with. Sad really, because what he's doing is amazing and I was rooting for  him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

To go back to our discussion about Cole Caufield's worth on a long-term deal, Marco D'Amico from Montreal Hockey Now went back and looked at comparable players (Ehlers, Keller, etc.) and determined that the market value for Caufield adjusting for salary cap would give him a contract of 7 years, 6-6.5M AAV, which is completely acceptable if you think he's going to continue to improve on the developmental curve he set last year. Not in the range of the Suzuki deal for sure, and I could live with that type of contract proposed here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

To go back to our discussion about Cole Caufield's worth on a long-term deal, Marco D'Amico from Montreal Hockey Now went back and looked at comparable players (Ehlers, Keller, etc.) and determined that the market value for Caufield adjusting for salary cap would give him a contract of 7 years, 6-6.5M AAV, which is completely acceptable if you think he's going to continue to improve on the developmental curve he set last year. Not in the range of the Suzuki deal for sure, and I could live with that type of contract proposed here.

Sounds fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

To go back to our discussion about Cole Caufield's worth on a long-term deal, Marco D'Amico from Montreal Hockey Now went back and looked at comparable players (Ehlers, Keller, etc.) and determined that the market value for Caufield adjusting for salary cap would give him a contract of 7 years, 6-6.5M AAV, which is completely acceptable if you think he's going to continue to improve on the developmental curve he set last year. Not in the range of the Suzuki deal for sure, and I could live with that type of contract proposed here.

honestly I would really want that extra year. I don't care what the salary is as long as we lock him up 8 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

To go back to our discussion about Cole Caufield's worth on a long-term deal, Marco D'Amico from Montreal Hockey Now went back and looked at comparable players (Ehlers, Keller, etc.) and determined that the market value for Caufield adjusting for salary cap would give him a contract of 7 years, 6-6.5M AAV, which is completely acceptable if you think he's going to continue to improve on the developmental curve he set last year. Not in the range of the Suzuki deal for sure, and I could live with that type of contract proposed here.

Could also live with that.  

 

6 minutes ago, habsisme said:

honestly I would really want that extra year. I don't care what the salary is as long as we lock him up 8 years

The extra year will be UFA so you'd have to think his people would push for a much higher salary towards the end of that contract. So the xtra year could push him to $7m per each year... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Could also live with that.  

 

The extra year will be UFA so you'd have to think his people would push for a much higher salary towards the end of that contract. So the xtra year could push him to $7m per each year... 

imo it would be worth it, but that's me. I hope we can do it at 6, that number makes more sense but if its 6x6 vs 7.8 for 8 years, I would prefer the latter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, habsisme said:

honestly I would really want that extra year. I don't care what the salary is as long as we lock him up 8 years

I'm really not that concerned about the 8th year to be honest. He's going to be 22 this year, so if we re-sign him to a 7-year deal, he'll be 29.5 at the time that contract ends. He's just entering his prime now and the goal is to lock him up for his prime years. Whether we get him for the season he turns 30 isn't a huge deal to me. What I prefer is to identify the Cup window, which is what I've been saying all along, and that to me, is 3-5 years from now. You want to be an elite team between 2024-27 give or take. For that to happen, it's more important to me to have as much cost control in that timeframe than it is to lock up a player for 8 vs 7 years. I mean look at another smaller player like Brendan Gallagher, who just turned 30 at the end of this season. Is he a guy where you'd be happy to have him signed to one more season at big money or would you rather be free to cut ties with him now if you had so chosen (and yes, I'm aware MB really screwed up that contract extension, which I said when he signed it a year ago)? Or Drouin, who'll be 28 next season. Drouin at the end of his 1st season and a half had just come off an incredible playoff performance. Is he a guy that Tampa would have been happy today having signed to an 8-year big money deal then? IMO, Caufield still has things to prove. Can he hit 30 goal? Can he hit 40? Can he be consistent? With his size, how well can he stay healthy? Can he prove himself on the PP? Can he play bigger minutes and still do well? Can he figure out how teams will adjust to him and play their best players against him? There's still some stuff to figure out here. And yes, maybe he ends up being great. But I'm not in a rush to have to go 8 years if I can get 7. I don't want to sign him to a 4-5 year deal the way Aho ended up getting after our offeersheet and then having him be a UFA in his mid-20s, but a 7-year deal is actually a great term for us, takes us through his prime, and doesn't stretch the AAV as much as an 8-year deal.

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...