Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

2021-22 State of the Habs


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

Yeah,,,,, i was pretty much agreeing with you on BC's value. If refs enforced the rules, guys like him would be in the box on just about every shift. It's because those infractions are ignored in the playoffs that guys like him are such a hot commodity.

Yeah, and they get labeled "playoff performers"... meanwhile, you have guys like Caufield last year or Cammalleri a decade ago who managed to play big games despite their size and still score, which IMO is even more clutch. Do you need guys who can defend and play tough? Absolutely. But the whole equating size and roughness with defence and playoff success is overblown in my opinion. There are guys who are big and tough and also do a good job of keeping the puck out of their net (eg prime Weber), and then there are guys where that narrative is fictional (eg Chiarot). The fact he played big minutes does not make him a top performer, but as I said, if other teams want to believe that, power to them and let's have them pay up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Yeah, and they get labeled "playoff performers"... meanwhile, you have guys like Caufield last year or Cammalleri a decade ago who managed to play big games despite their size and still score, which IMO is even more clutch. Do you need guys who can defend and play tough? Absolutely. But the whole equating size and roughness with defence and playoff success is overblown in my opinion. There are guys who are big and tough and also do a good job of keeping the puck out of their net (eg prime Weber), and then there are guys where that narrative is fictional (eg Chiarot). The fact he played big minutes does not make him a top performer, but as I said, if other teams want to believe that, power to them and let's have them pay up for it.

it was once overblown but now I think people minimize size, roughness and defense as if it doesn't matter. 

I get that someone is going to pay him more money than he's worth, but if you don't like a guy like Chiarot at 3.5-4 million AAV I have trouble understanding that. He's a solid middle pairing D-man with size, who has actually scored a decent amount in his career, who can play the right side in a pinch. 

I know that with Bergevin we had too many of those types of players, but Chiarot was one of the good ones, and I don't want to swing the pendulum in the other direction. We need balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow a lot of stuff to talk about here.

Chiarot - I hate using advanced stats to project a defensive D man's value. Advanced stats tend to favor more mobile or puck moving D men. Things like shot blocking and board battles don't come into play in most advanced stats data collection. I would rather see how chiarot's advanced stats measure up to more defensive dmen like Manson or Edmundson these are better comparisons than Kulak. I bet you will find that most defensive dmen around the league rank near the bottom (10%) this is because they are simply less mobile. I don't understand why shot blocking does not count towards preventing scoring chances because they are literally preventing a scoring chance. All that being said I would still trade Chiarot for the right price.

Lehkonen - Lehky gets little respect for his offensive abilities but he is no slouch by any standard. He is on pace to have his best season to date and most of his production has been since MSL took over. The Lehky-Gallagher duo has been dangerous every time it hits the ice. This has always been the case ever since Lehky came into the league, when he plays with better players, he plays better himself. I would resign him even if it costs 3.5 Mil on a 6 year deal.

Hoffman, Armia, Byron, Wideman, Pacquette and Savard - these guys I find any way possible to get off my roster. They are replacement level players making too much money. If I have to add a 3rd or 4th or C level prospect to dump them I would, their cap space is more valuable than the picks or prospects. 

Allen, Perrault and Kulak - these guys I am shopping for picks only. 

Anderson, Suzuki, Caufield, Gallagher, R. Pitlick, Evans, Poehling, Pezzeta, Petry, Romanov, Clague, Schueneman, Montembeault, Hammond, Price, Drouin, Edmundson are all players to be either resigned or kept. 

Lineup

Caufield-Suzuki-Anderson 

Lehkonen-Pitlick-Gallagher 

Drouin-×××-Roy (maybe makes it out of camp)

RHP-Poehling-Pezzeta

Edmundson-Petry 

Romanov-Harris (if he signs)

Clague-xxx

Price

Hammond 

Extras

Montembeault

Schueneman

Xxx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, habsisme said:

it was once overblown but now I think people minimize size, roughness and defense as if it doesn't matter. 

I get that someone is going to pay him more money than he's worth, but if you don't like a guy like Chiarot at 3.5-4 million AAV I have trouble understanding that. He's a solid middle pairing D-man with size, who has actually scored a decent amount in his career, who can play the right side in a pinch. 

I know that with Bergevin we had too many of those types of players, but Chiarot was one of the good ones, and I don't want to swing the pendulum in the other direction. We need balance. 

Some folks have been down on Chiarot since he got here it is what it is everyone has a type of player that they prefer and we all do it and we all explain it in our own way. The fact is he has been good for us when used as he should be and frankly he has improved with time on a team with crap coaching and a partner last year with one knee. if the price is right I keep him for 3 years or so if it is longer or too much money we walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Wow a lot of stuff to talk about here.

Chiarot - I hate using advanced stats to project a defensive D man's value. Advanced stats tend to favor more mobile or puck moving D men. Things like shot blocking and board battles don't come into play in most advanced stats data collection. I would rather see how chiarot's advanced stats measure up to more defensive dmen like Manson or Edmundson these are better comparisons than Kulak. I bet you will find that most defensive dmen around the league rank near the bottom (10%) this is because they are simply less mobile. I don't understand why shot blocking does not count towards preventing scoring chances because they are literally preventing a scoring chance. All that being said I would still trade Chiarot for the right price.

Lehkonen - Lehky gets little respect for his offensive abilities but he is no slouch by any standard. He is on pace to have his best season to date and most of his production has been since MSL took over. The Lehky-Gallagher duo has been dangerous every time it hits the ice. This has always been the case ever since Lehky came into the league, when he plays with better players, he plays better himself. I would resign him even if it costs 3.5 Mil on a 6 year deal.

Hoffman, Armia, Byron, Wideman, Pacquette and Savard - these guys I find any way possible to get off my roster. They are replacement level players making too much money. If I have to add a 3rd or 4th or C level prospect to dump them I would, their cap space is more valuable than the picks or prospects. 

Allen, Perrault and Kulak - these guys I am shopping for picks only. 

Anderson, Suzuki, Caufield, Gallagher, R. Pitlick, Evans, Poehling, Pezzeta, Petry, Romanov, Clague, Schueneman, Montembeault, Hammond, Price, Drouin, Edmundson are all players to be either resigned or kept. 

Lineup

Caufield-Suzuki-Anderson 

Lehkonen-Pitlick-Gallagher 

Drouin-×××-Roy (maybe makes it out of camp)

RHP-Poehling-Pezzeta

Edmundson-Petry 

Romanov-Harris (if he signs)

Clague-xxx

Price

Hammond 

Extras

Montembeault

Schueneman

Xxx

Yep I agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

Some folks have been down on Chiarot since he got here it is what it is everyone has a type of player that they prefer and we all do it and we all explain it in our own way. The fact is he has been good for us when used as he should be and frankly he has improved with time on a team with crap coaching and a partner last year with one knee. if the price is right I keep him for 3 years or so if it is longer or too much money we walk.

I honestly think he's going to get a big deal unless he tanks in the playoffs. The big question is does he fit into our long term plans? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, I missed Dvorak, he goes in the same category as Allen, Kulak and Perrault for me. Guys with value but likely shopped for picks/prospects Dvorak being in this group for me is simply just due to lack of fit with the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I actually think Chiarot is a big, tough defenceman that is relatively good at defending. Julien and DD's systems did not make use of his mobility and he became labeled as a big slug which I think was unfair.

 Chariot is big (6' 3" 234 lbs) and he is tough e.g. he fought KK's fight for him last year and often comes to team mates defence unlike some analytic darlings. The fact that he doesn't draw more penalties than he takes as a defenceman does not diminish his play in my eyes. Give me average or better goaltending and I will take guys like Edmundson, Chairot and a healthy Weber on my 6 D every day of the week. 

I agree that if some other team is willing to overpay for him we let him go but if we resign him on a reasonable term I won't be too upset with management..........unless they trade him and bring in someone like Subban as a short term replacement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RCAF48 said:

 I actually think Chiarot is a big, tough defenceman that is relatively good at defending. Julien and DD's systems did not make use of his mobility and he became labeled as a big slug which I think was unfair.

 Chariot is big (6' 3" 234 lbs) and he is tough e.g. he fought KK's fight for him last year and often comes to team mates defence unlike some analytic darlings. The fact that he doesn't draw more penalties than he takes as a defenceman does not diminish his play in my eyes. Give me average or better goaltending and I will take guys like Edmundson, Chairot and a healthy Weber on my 6 D every day of the week. 

I agree that if some other team is willing to overpay for him we let him go but if we resign him on a reasonable term I won't be too upset with management..........unless they trade him and bring in someone like Subban as a short term replacement

I also agree that Chiarot is likely a better defensman than what Julien/DD's system made him out to be.  I dont think he's a top pairing guy but under the right circumstances I think he's possibly a good top 4.   His skating has always been enigmatic because he's actually quite mobile/fast but doesnt turn as well as a guy like Petry or Subban used to so it seems like he's slow but he's actually not.  

I definitely think we should trade him as I am sure we will get a good return for him & I dont see him being a bit part of our team moving forward, but i think he's probably a better DMan than a lot of us give him credit for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how we can say that possession metrics don't capture things like board battles... it's pretty simple: if you win a board battle and recover the puck, the other team doesn't get a shot or a scoring chance. If you win the board battle but turn the puck over and don't get it out of your own zone, the board battle win doesn't mean much. If you win the board battle and get the puck up the ice and get a chance for your team, it makes your possession stats better.

Here are two players:

- Player A plays 20 minutes in the game. He is on the ice for 30 shot attempts against, of which 12 get through to the net, including 6 scoring chances against. He personally blocks 3 of the shots and distributes 5 body checks. While he's on, his own team has 20 shot attempts at the other team's net and 4 scoring chances.

- Player B also plays 20 minutes in the game. He is on for 20 shot attempts against and 4 scoring chances against. He is also on for 30 shot attempts for his own team and 6 scoring chances for. He blocks 2 shots and distributes 3 body checks.

 

So here, Player A blocks more shots than Player B (3 vs 2) and distributes more body checks, and over time, people say look, Player A is a great defender, because he's blocking the most shots and making hits. But Player A blocked 10% of the shots directed at net when he was on (3 of 30) and so did Player B (2 of 20). To boot, Player A has a Corsi of 40%, meaning 40% of the shots at goal were attempted by his own team and 60% by the other team when he was on the ice, and the same percentages here would apply to the scoring chance data. Conversely, Player B has a Corsi of 60%, and 60% of the scoring chances belong to his team when he's on the ice. Yes, this is just a made-up example, but at the end of the day, I couldn't care less how many shots a guy blocks in absolute numbers or how many hits he delivers unless it leads to a net benefit towards winning games. If a guy is blocking so many shots that he's taking away scoring chances, then we'll see that reflected in the scoring chance stat. If his hits are separating guys from the puck such that we regain possession and the other team doesn't get a chance to shoot, that'll be reflected in Corsi.

I think some people see Corsi as a reflection of how well a guy skates around with the puck and has it on his stick (like a Kovalev), but it's not. It's a measure of the balance of who is getting better opportunity to win the game when a player is on the ice. You can have a great Corsi by being the guy who controls play and always has the puck and generates offence, but you can also positively contribute to Corsi by preventing chances against. If you're great at preventing the opposition from establishing the zone or great at creating turnovers or great at getting on loose pucks and getting them cleared out of your zone successfully while maintaining possession, you will see it reflected in these metrics. Zdeno Chara is a prime example of a guy who is big and lumbering and physical but he's had excellent possession metrics his entire career. Shea Weber is another. Neither guy is really that adept at skating the puck or making great exit passes, but they manage to keep the other team to the outside and separate man from puck. Jake Muzzin has strong possession metrics. Joel Edmundson has had good metrics while here, albeit some of that may be due to playing with Petry. Drew Doughty. Victor Hedman. Philippe Myers. Chris Tanev. Alec Martinez. There are guys who are bigger and stronger and guys who are better known for defence than offence who can have excellent metrics.

Lastly, FWIW, Chiarot's numbers were better under Julien than anyone else. There were some comments that Julien was holding Chiarot back, but Julien for the most part tried to play low-event hockey. His teams frequently won the possession battle and got more chances than the opposition, and that helped Chiarot. Under MSL, Chiarot is getting more chances to score and putting up some points, but he's also giving up more too. In the 11 games with MSL as coach, the team has been out-chanced with Chiarot on the ice in 7 of them. In fact, 3 of Chiarot's 5 worst defensive games of the year have come under MSL (3 of the 5 games with the most shot attempts allowed with him on the ice). So if anything, I'd say MSL's plan to play a more open, creative, offensive brand of hockey has helped a lot of the players, but Chiarot isn't one of them. Again, yes, offensive output is improving, but with high-event hockey that's expected. We're giving up more with Chiarot on the ice than we're getting, and that seems to have actually worsened under MSL. Ultimately, the way to solve this is to either say he doesn't fit the new system and let him go or you need to play him in a role that's more comfortable, with less minutes or weaker opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, H_T_L said:

I honestly think he's going to get a big deal unless he tanks in the playoffs. The big question is does he fit into our long term plans? 

Not on a big deal! No point keeping him so he can cash out long term but if he will take a fair offer and reasonable term I say sign him. You never know at this point it is all speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

I'm not sure how we can say that possession metrics don't capture things like board battles... it's pretty simple: if you win a board battle and recover the puck, the other team doesn't get a shot or a scoring chance. If you win the board battle but turn the puck over and don't get it out of your own zone, the board battle win doesn't mean much. If you win the board battle and get the puck up the ice and get a chance for your team, it makes your possession stats better.

Here are two players:

- Player A plays 20 minutes in the game. He is on the ice for 30 shot attempts against, of which 12 get through to the net, including 6 scoring chances against. He personally blocks 3 of the shots and distributes 5 body checks. While he's on, his own team has 20 shot attempts at the other team's net and 4 scoring chances.

- Player B also plays 20 minutes in the game. He is on for 20 shot attempts against and 4 scoring chances against. He is also on for 30 shot attempts for his own team and 6 scoring chances for. He blocks 2 shots and distributes 3 body checks.

 

So here, Player A blocks more shots than Player B (3 vs 2) and distributes more body checks, and over time, people say look, Player A is a great defender, because he's blocking the most shots and making hits. But Player A blocked 10% of the shots directed at net when he was on (3 of 30) and so did Player B (2 of 20). To boot, Player A has a Corsi of 40%, meaning 40% of the shots at goal were attempted by his own team and 60% by the other team when he was on the ice, and the same percentages here would apply to the scoring chance data. Conversely, Player B has a Corsi of 60%, and 60% of the scoring chances belong to his team when he's on the ice. Yes, this is just a made-up example, but at the end of the day, I couldn't care less how many shots a guy blocks in absolute numbers or how many hits he delivers unless it leads to a net benefit towards winning games. If a guy is blocking so many shots that he's taking away scoring chances, then we'll see that reflected in the scoring chance stat. If his hits are separating guys from the puck such that we regain possession and the other team doesn't get a chance to shoot, that'll be reflected in Corsi.

I think some people see Corsi as a reflection of how well a guy skates around with the puck and has it on his stick (like a Kovalev), but it's not. It's a measure of the balance of who is getting better opportunity to win the game when a player is on the ice. You can have a great Corsi by being the guy who controls play and always has the puck and generates offence, but you can also positively contribute to Corsi by preventing chances against. If you're great at preventing the opposition from establishing the zone or great at creating turnovers or great at getting on loose pucks and getting them cleared out of your zone successfully while maintaining possession, you will see it reflected in these metrics. Zdeno Chara is a prime example of a guy who is big and lumbering and physical but he's had excellent possession metrics his entire career. Shea Weber is another. Neither guy is really that adept at skating the puck or making great exit passes, but they manage to keep the other team to the outside and separate man from puck. Jake Muzzin has strong possession metrics. Joel Edmundson has had good metrics while here, albeit some of that may be due to playing with Petry. Drew Doughty. Victor Hedman. Philippe Myers. Chris Tanev. Alec Martinez. There are guys who are bigger and stronger and guys who are better known for defence than offence who can have excellent metrics.

Lastly, FWIW, Chiarot's numbers were better under Julien than anyone else. There were some comments that Julien was holding Chiarot back, but Julien for the most part tried to play low-event hockey. His teams frequently won the possession battle and got more chances than the opposition, and that helped Chiarot. Under MSL, Chiarot is getting more chances to score and putting up some points, but he's also giving up more too. In the 11 games with MSL as coach, the team has been out-chanced with Chiarot on the ice in 7 of them. In fact, 3 of Chiarot's 5 worst defensive games of the year have come under MSL (3 of the 5 games with the most shot attempts allowed with him on the ice). So if anything, I'd say MSL's plan to play a more open, creative, offensive brand of hockey has helped a lot of the players, but Chiarot isn't one of them. Again, yes, offensive output is improving, but with high-event hockey that's expected. We're giving up more with Chiarot on the ice than we're getting, and that seems to have actually worsened under MSL. Ultimately, the way to solve this is to either say he doesn't fit the new system and let him go or you need to play him in a role that's more comfortable, with less minutes or weaker opposition.

When I said board battles, I was referring to just the battles themselves not the outcomes. who would you rather have in a board battle Chiarot or Kulak? Chiarot is the guy that does all the work along the boards, pinning the opposition and creating the opportunities for the loose pucks that Kulak types of players come in and gather up. This is not a board battle win for Chiarot as he did not move the puck up the ice but he caused the win by pinning the guy to the boards for player B to move the puck. The other thing to keep in mind when looking at advanced stats is player deployment, Chiarot won't get as much O zone time as Kulak or Petry or some of the more offensive minded D men in the league so his corsi will always be lower when comparing him to them. Chiarot is the guy you send out in the final minutes of a game when you are up a goal and need to lock it down, not when you are down a goal and need to score to send the game into OT. That is why advanced stats IMO favor the puck moving or 2 way defenders over defensive d men. Chara, Weber and Muzzin are used on the PP and IMO are more of 2 way dmen in that they contribute offensively as much as defensively. Manson, Chiarot, Mayfield, Faulk and Martinez are all top 4 d men who would be comparable to Chiarot. I don't know their Advanced stats but I feel like they would all be similar. I don't think Chiarot is going to be better or worse under MSL, he is what he is and that's alright cause we don't need him to be anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/what-the-puck-contracts-handcuff-canadiens-plan-for-future

Bad deals doled out by former GM Marc Bergevin might make it impossible for new Habs braintrust to do a classic rebuild.

The only problem is, on closer inspection, most of the Habs’ veterans are not tradable for the very good reason that the contracts Bergevin gave them are downright brutal. The one player who is going for sure is Ben Chiarot. He’ll be a free agent this summer and is a solid top-four defenceman who more than proved his worth in last year’s playoff run. But he is the only sure thing Jeff Gorton and Kent Hughes have.

 

In any normal rebuild another veteran you’d like to unload would be Brendan Gallagher. We all love Gally, but clearly he is on the downside of his career. However, a team making a run this year would like to have an all-heart dude like Gallagher on the squad. But no team is going to trade for a rugged 29-year-old winger who is scoring far less frequently than he used to and is on the first year of a six-year deal with an annual US$6.5 million cap hit.

 

You also won’t be able to find any buyers for Christian Dvorak, a panic pick-up last summer after Bergevin blundered and lost Jesperi Kotkaniemi to the Carolina Hurricanes. Dvorak, who has been a total bust for the Canadiens, comes with an annual cap hit of US$4.45 million through to the end of the 2024-25 season. Jonathan Drouin’s contract ends earlier, at the end of the 2022-23 season, but I think we can all agree that, at US$5.5 million a year, few will be willing to roll the dice with one of the more inconsistent top-six forwards in the NHL.

 

Also very unlikely to change addresses is the mysterious Joel Armia. Mysterious in that he occasionally looks brilliant, notably during last season’s playoffs, but mostly looks like he’s out of his depth. His contract? Ridiculous. He is in first season of a four-year deal that has an annual cap hit of US$3.4 million.

 

So who does that leave you with as trade bait? Mike Hoffman? He is a unidimensional player who has a great shot and is good on the power play. Sadly that is it. At US$4.5 million through to end of 2023-24 season, he is not going to get many suitors.

 

Others, such as Brett Kulak, Chris Wideman and Artturi Lehkonen, have more team friendly contracts, but are not going to net the CH much in return.

 

Last but not least, there are the two elephants in the room — Carey Price and Shea Weber. Weber is on long-term injured reserve, so his annual US$7.857 million does’t count against the salary cap. There are reports that some teams, including possibly the Arizona Coyotes, might pick him up and put him on their roster just so they can make the floor of the salary cap.

 

Price, as usual, remains a total enigma. He is being paid US$13 million this season by the Canadiens and has yet to play a game. His status is shrouded in mystery. He was skating in Brossard on Monday, but there is no timeline for his return.

 

Is he tradable? Not now. First, he has to return to play and it’s unclear if or when that will happen. In any case, even trading Price this summer will be difficult given his US$10.5 million cap hit and his inconsistent play and injuries during the past few years.

 

In short, Gorton and Hughes might well have decided not to rebuild because they’ve realized it just can’t be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/what-the-puck-contracts-handcuff-canadiens-plan-for-future

Bad deals doled out by former GM Marc Bergevin might make it impossible for new Habs braintrust to do a classic rebuild.

The only problem is, on closer inspection, most of the Habs’ veterans are not tradable for the very good reason that the contracts Bergevin gave them are downright brutal. The one player who is going for sure is Ben Chiarot. He’ll be a free agent this summer and is a solid top-four defenceman who more than proved his worth in last year’s playoff run. But he is the only sure thing Jeff Gorton and Kent Hughes have.

 

In any normal rebuild another veteran you’d like to unload would be Brendan Gallagher. We all love Gally, but clearly he is on the downside of his career. However, a team making a run this year would like to have an all-heart dude like Gallagher on the squad. But no team is going to trade for a rugged 29-year-old winger who is scoring far less frequently than he used to and is on the first year of a six-year deal with an annual US$6.5 million cap hit.

 

You also won’t be able to find any buyers for Christian Dvorak, a panic pick-up last summer after Bergevin blundered and lost Jesperi Kotkaniemi to the Carolina Hurricanes. Dvorak, who has been a total bust for the Canadiens, comes with an annual cap hit of US$4.45 million through to the end of the 2024-25 season. Jonathan Drouin’s contract ends earlier, at the end of the 2022-23 season, but I think we can all agree that, at US$5.5 million a year, few will be willing to roll the dice with one of the more inconsistent top-six forwards in the NHL.

 

Also very unlikely to change addresses is the mysterious Joel Armia. Mysterious in that he occasionally looks brilliant, notably during last season’s playoffs, but mostly looks like he’s out of his depth. His contract? Ridiculous. He is in first season of a four-year deal that has an annual cap hit of US$3.4 million.

 

So who does that leave you with as trade bait? Mike Hoffman? He is a unidimensional player who has a great shot and is good on the power play. Sadly that is it. At US$4.5 million through to end of 2023-24 season, he is not going to get many suitors.

 

Others, such as Brett Kulak, Chris Wideman and Artturi Lehkonen, have more team friendly contracts, but are not going to net the CH much in return.

 

Last but not least, there are the two elephants in the room — Carey Price and Shea Weber. Weber is on long-term injured reserve, so his annual US$7.857 million does’t count against the salary cap. There are reports that some teams, including possibly the Arizona Coyotes, might pick him up and put him on their roster just so they can make the floor of the salary cap.

 

Price, as usual, remains a total enigma. He is being paid US$13 million this season by the Canadiens and has yet to play a game. His status is shrouded in mystery. He was skating in Brossard on Monday, but there is no timeline for his return.

 

Is he tradable? Not now. First, he has to return to play and it’s unclear if or when that will happen. In any case, even trading Price this summer will be difficult given his US$10.5 million cap hit and his inconsistent play and injuries during the past few years.

 

In short, Gorton and Hughes might well have decided not to rebuild because they’ve realized it just can’t be done.

Brendan Kelly is such a hack.   

I agree with some of what he's saying (Gallagher or Hoffman would be tough trades for sure) but some of his statements are ridiculous beyond belief. 

Johnathan Drouin is "one of the more inconsistent top-six forwards in the NHL."  Really, Brendan?  In the entire NHL?  Drouin is 26 and has scored between .52-.65 ppg for 6 straight seasons.  Likewise Dvorak who is not a "bust" any more than the whole team this year until MSL took over. He had a brutal start yes but (before the injury) was rounding back into form & is currently on pace for a prorated 40 point season. I dont know what Mr. Kelly thinks a 40 or 50 point scorer costs in todays NHL but these are two youngish players who are on reasonable and fair contracts and could be traded if the GM wanted to do so but both are young enough that neither should have real issues with their current contracts. 

Armia likewise had a brutal start but has played one game under MSL.  12 games ago people were calling CC a bust but since MSL took over he has 7 goals in 11 games.  Lets give Armia a chance before we just 'dump him' as Kelly seems to suggest we do. 

But I guess we're talking about him so its "fait accompli" for this egomaniac. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

 I don't think Chiarot is going to be better or worse under MSL, he is what he is and that's alright cause we don't need him to be anything else. 

This comment puzzles me. We need to improve our defence not flat line it, so we need D-men better than Ben Chiarot including cheaper. Ben is going to be 31 entering next season - right at the peak of most d-men in demonstrated skills and ability. For certain he will want 3-4 year security and likely some form of handcuff NTC (10 team?) clause.

1) Shouldn't we be selling assets very close to their peak vs. hanging on for 1-2 years before an inevitable decline or do you want to sell / trade when they are at their low?

2) Edmundson absolutely duplicates Ben on the Left side pairing - Are you proposing to sign Ben, and try to trade Edmundson who right now would likely be low value? Are you proposing to keep Ben on the right side pairing - he duplicates (albeit a few degrees better) what Savard brings (if Savard ever improves - TBD). I might sign Ben next year if it's very likely Edmundson's back is career threatening but that's one limitation. 

3) I don't see the downside to not signing Chiarot - you have Romanov, an almost lock on Guhle (who can also play the right side), Edmundson if healthy, and possibly Harris / Norlinder and even a possible Kulak. I don't see a major regression given that we are unlikely to make the top 16 and playoffs next year (unless Price miraculously rebounds). Similarly, I don't see the upside in re-signing Chiarot - for the likely $4 million that he would command, he's not likely going to push us into top 8 past 1st round compete category for the next 2 years. We need far more improvement. I could see possibly resigning Ben as an only if mgmt. believes Price is returning to elite form (i.e. why surround Price with mistake prone youngsters)

4) This organization has poorly developed it's prospects in the past - There's enough leadership on our D without needing Ben. Time to pass the torch to some of the youngsters and give them the NHL ice time they need vs. signing another veteran like Ben who would just push them to Laval. 

5) Ben deserves a chance to be a winner at the peak of his career which is the next 3 years - Maybe, just maybe we become a winner in year 3 but it will be difficult for him this year and next. Do the right moral thing, and thank him for his service and let him go to a contender of his choice.

I for one am certainly intrigued on what value we receive in exchange for Chiarot being traded prior to the deadline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Brendan Kelly is such a hack.   

I agree with some of what he's saying (Gallagher or Hoffman would be tough trades for sure) but some of his statements are ridiculous beyond belief. 

Johnathan Drouin is "one of the more inconsistent top-six forwards in the NHL."  Really, Brendan?  In the entire NHL?  Drouin is 26 and has scored between .52-.65 ppg for 6 straight seasons.  Likewise Dvorak who is not a "bust" any more than the whole team this year until MSL took over. He had a brutal start yes but (before the injury) was rounding back into form & is currently on pace for a prorated 40 point season. I dont know what Mr. Kelly thinks a 40 or 50 point scorer costs in todays NHL but these are two youngish players who are on reasonable and fair contracts and could be traded if the GM wanted to do so but both are young enough that neither should have real issues with their current contracts. 

Armia likewise had a brutal start but has played one game under MSL.  12 games ago people were calling CC a bust but since MSL took over he has 7 goals in 11 games.  Lets give Armia a chance before we just 'dump him' as Kelly seems to suggest we do. 

But I guess we're talking about him so its "fait accompli" for this egomaniac. 

 

 

complete agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Brendan Kelly is such a hack.   
I agree with some of what he's saying (Gallagher or Hoffman would be tough trades for sure) but some of his statements are ridiculous beyond belief. 

Johnathan Drouin is "one of the more inconsistent top-six forwards in the NHL."  Really, Brendan?  In the entire NHL?  Drouin is 26 and has scored between .52-.65 ppg for 6 straight seasons.  Likewise Dvorak who is not a "bust" any more than the whole team this year until MSL took over. He had a brutal start yes but (before the injury) was rounding back into form & is currently on pace for a prorated 40 point season. I dont know what Mr. Kelly thinks a 40 or 50 point scorer costs in todays NHL but these are two youngish players who are on reasonable and fair contracts and could be traded if the GM wanted to do so but both are young enough that neither should have real issues with their current contracts. 

Armia likewise had a brutal start but has played one game under MSL.  12 games ago people were calling CC a bust but since MSL took over he has 7 goals in 11 games.  Lets give Armia a chance before we just 'dump him' as Kelly seems to suggest we do. 

But I guess we're talking about him so its "fait accompli" for this egomaniac. 

I agree he Kelly is an idiotic "sky is falling" - panic nay sayer but I do acknowledge we have some bad untradeable contracts but there still is the Minnesota Wild approach (GM Guerin went all in this year and really mortgaged or handcuffed his future with buyouts - his dead cap hits next 3 years are unreal at $12.7M - $14.7M for Parise / Suter)

I totally disagree with the Dvorak Bust - one year of injuries, and a bad coach doesn't define a bust, and we only have 1 more year of Drouin so that's not a boat anchor.

A rebuild can still be done by slapping a couple of buyouts on some bad contracts so I would pose the question of who and when with my sentiments as follows:

a) Makes no sense to do any buyouts next year - we are unlikely to be a top contender and don't need the cap space

b) If Savard continues at his current pace and no one wants him  - I would buy him out June 15/23 - not big money over the 4 years thereafter at $383K, $2.2M and $1.1M for the last 2 years

c) The same with Mike Hoffman who only has value as a power play specialist and defensively weak - Again if no real progress and no one wants him, the last 2 years on his contract are bought out with dead cap hits of $1.2M and $1.7M

So there's hope for Dvorak, 1 year of Drouin and slight pain for 2 bad contracts of Savard / Hoffman. Hardly handcuffs that prevent a rebuild

The Armia contract is a little worse. The Gallagher contract could be painful but most teams have at least 1-2 untradeable contracts and these are ours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys I think will be difficult to trade: Price, Gallagher, Armia, Hoffman, Savard

Guys I think we can move at some point over the next year (not necessarily the trade deadline this year): Petry, Dvorak, Drouin, Byron, Edmundson

Guys I think we should have no problem moving this season: Chiarot, Lehkonen, Allen (as long as he's back healthy), Kulak, Perreault, Wideman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renaud Lavoie ( again on the fan590 today  ) doesn't think Gorton and Hughes will change their plan based on the recent success the team has under MSL .

He said let's see how the team does after a second go - around the league .

He ( not me ) said  teams were using their 2nd string goalie ( I have no idea if this is true ) and teams just weren't prepared for Montreal ( i.e.  not taking them seriously ) so to him he'd like to see how they do after going through the league once .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Guys I think will be difficult to trade: Price, Gallagher, Armia, Hoffman, Savard

Guys I think we can move at some point over the next year (not necessarily the trade deadline this year): Petry, Dvorak, Drouin, Byron, Edmundson

Guys I think we should have no problem moving this season: Chiarot, Lehkonen, Allen (as long as he's back healthy), Kulak, Perreault, Wideman

Agree although I think Armia is totally tradeable if he strings together a strong 10-15 games again at some point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, claremont said:

This comment puzzles me. We need to improve our defence not flat line it, so we need D-men better than Ben Chiarot including cheaper. Ben is going to be 31 entering next season - right at the peak of most d-men in demonstrated skills and ability. For certain he will want 3-4 year security and likely some form of handcuff NTC (10 team?) clause.

1) Shouldn't we be selling assets very close to their peak vs. hanging on for 1-2 years before an inevitable decline or do you want to sell / trade when they are at their low?

2) Edmundson absolutely duplicates Ben on the Left side pairing - Are you proposing to sign Ben, and try to trade Edmundson who right now would likely be low value? Are you proposing to keep Ben on the right side pairing - he duplicates (albeit a few degrees better) what Savard brings (if Savard ever improves - TBD). I might sign Ben next year if it's very likely Edmundson's back is career threatening but that's one limitation. 

3) I don't see the downside to not signing Chiarot - you have Romanov, an almost lock on Guhle (who can also play the right side), Edmundson if healthy, and possibly Harris / Norlinder and even a possible Kulak. I don't see a major regression given that we are unlikely to make the top 16 and playoffs next year (unless Price miraculously rebounds). Similarly, I don't see the upside in re-signing Chiarot - for the likely $4 million that he would command, he's not likely going to push us into top 8 past 1st round compete category for the next 2 years. We need far more improvement. I could see possibly resigning Ben as an only if mgmt. believes Price is returning to elite form (i.e. why surround Price with mistake prone youngsters)

4) This organization has poorly developed it's prospects in the past - There's enough leadership on our D without needing Ben. Time to pass the torch to some of the youngsters and give them the NHL ice time they need vs. signing another veteran like Ben who would just push them to Laval. 

5) Ben deserves a chance to be a winner at the peak of his career which is the next 3 years - Maybe, just maybe we become a winner in year 3 but it will be difficult for him this year and next. Do the right moral thing, and thank him for his service and let him go to a contender of his choice.

I for one am certainly intrigued on what value we receive in exchange for Chiarot being traded prior to the deadline

TBH, I was running on 2 hours of sleep and have no idea what point I was trying to make LOL. I think what I was trying to say is we shouldn't expect more from Chiarot under MSL than we saw under CJ or DD. 

1) Yes we absolutely should be selling high on assets we don't need going forward.

2) Edmundson's back worries me significantly, I have degenerative disc disease and know how debilitating back pain can actually be. I would absolutely be trying to move Edmondson right now, we don't want him to become our Jake Gardner. I get we would be selling low but like you said he may never play again.

3) I would also try and trade Savard because he is not very good and we are not in a contention window so keeping him around makes little sense. 

4) See comments 2 and 3, With David and Joel gone our D would absolutely need a veteran D to guide the youngsters along.

5) Isn't the right "moral" thing to do to let him make his own decision? Why do the Habs get to force him into moving on if he doesn't want to move on? Should we not be asking Chiarot if he wants to stay and help build the team and maybe contend in 2 or 3 years rather than forcing him out without any input from him whatsoever? Chiarot is not a top pairing D man everyone knows this (I imagine even Ben knows this) he is a solid top 4 guy though and IF Edmundson doesn't return or doesn't return to form and becomes the Habs form of Gardner then we would be worse off having let Ben go. I would rather risk the contract to Chiarot than gamble on Edmundson being healthy and depend on Savard to step up his game.

I don't mind trading Chiarot for more than a 2nd but I also don't mind resigning him if the offers aren't there or like I stated above if Edmundson is more serious than expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

5) Isn't the right "moral" thing to do to let him make his own decision? Why do the Habs get to force him into moving on if he doesn't want to move on? Should we not be asking Chiarot if he wants to stay and help build the team and maybe contend in 2 or 3 years rather than forcing him out without any input from him whatsoever? Chiarot is not a top pairing D man everyone knows this (I imagine even Ben knows this) he is a solid top 4 guy though and IF Edmundson doesn't return or doesn't return to form and becomes the Habs form of Gardner then we would be worse off having let Ben go. I would rather risk the contract to Chiarot than gamble on Edmundson being healthy and depend on Savard to step up his game.

I don't mind trading Chiarot for more than a 2nd but I also don't mind resigning him if the offers aren't there or like I stated above if Edmundson is more serious than expected.

I think you need to trade Chiarot before the deadline. Hanging onto him isn't going to help us in our next competitive window. He's over-valued right now and it's the right time to trade him for future assets. A lot of reporting seems to indicate we can get two future assets (picks and/or prospects) from a Chiarot trade, so that's what I expect. Hoping for a first rounder and a prospect.

I'm pretty sure when Hughes came on board, it was reported that he spoke with all the players. I'm sure he's done his work to see what Ben was interested in. And I'm sure Hughes was also straight up about the possibility of trading him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I think you need to trade Chiarot before the deadline. Hanging onto him isn't going to help us in our next competitive window. He's over-valued right now and it's the right time to trade him for future assets. A lot of reporting seems to indicate we can get two future assets (picks and/or prospects) from a Chiarot trade, so that's what I expect. Hoping for a first rounder and a prospect.

I'm pretty sure when Hughes came on board, it was reported that he spoke with all the players. I'm sure he's done his work to see what Ben was interested in. And I'm sure Hughes was also straight up about the possibility of trading him.

Yeah i value chiarot more than some here but that's all I'm saying. I still think we should move him. But if the same player was 5 years younger I'd re-sign him cause he's a good player

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...