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

2021-22 Rumours


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

Friedman says Stl, Fla, and Cal are teams that have all reach out to Habs about Chiarot. Mike Johnson says the Leafs could be interested too. We've heard Edmonton before. He's a target for many teams. Should be able to drive the price up. A 1st and another piece is the trade that gets me to sign off now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Friedman says Stl, Fla, and Cal are teams that have all reach out to Habs about Chiarot. Mike Johnson says the Leafs could be interested too. We've heard Edmonton before. He's a target for many teams. Should be able to drive the price up. A 1st and another piece is the trade that gets me to sign off now.

Same here it is time to start moving the folks who will be moved anyways to get the best possible returns A draft pick and a prospect who will fit into the new look and style of play is a good way to go. We also need to start getting the salary cap sorted out! we want to be able to make the moves we need  to without being handcuffed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

Friedman says Stl, Fla, and Cal are teams that have all reach out to Habs about Chiarot. Mike Johnson says the Leafs could be interested too. We've heard Edmonton before. He's a target for many teams. Should be able to drive the price up. A 1st and another piece is the trade that gets me to sign off now.

Calgary has Zary who I have some interest in as a Centre prospect. Florida has Sourdif but he’s not strong enough in terms of ceiling for my liking, as no way they give up Lundell. The Blues have Zachary Bolduc who is intriguing, but also a LW in Jake Neighbours. The Leafs don’t have any Centre prospects of interest and LW Amirov comes with Russian negotiating hangover - maybe LW - Matthew Knies but otherwise just picks. If the prospect is a former first rounder like I’ve mentioned with these and Bourgault in Edm., then one of those plus a 2nd or 3rd round meets my fair value for Chiarot - I’d actually prefer this vs a projected 16-32 pick in either 2022 or 2023. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, claremont said:

Calgary has Zary who I have some interest in as a Centre prospect. Florida has Sourdif but he’s not strong enough in terms of ceiling for my liking, as no way they give up Lundell. The Blues have Zachary Bolduc who is intriguing, but also a LW in Jake Neighbours. The Leafs don’t have any Centre prospects of interest and LW Amirov comes with Russian negotiating hangover - maybe LW - Matthew Knies but otherwise just picks. If the prospect is a former first rounder like I’ve mentioned with these and Bourgault in Edm., then one of those plus a 2nd or 3rd round meets my fair value for Chiarot - I’d actually prefer this vs a projected 16-32 pick in either 2022 or 2023. 

Of teams that are potentially headed to the playoffs and willing to deal prospects, Edmonton easily has one of the more intriguing pools. Bourgault, as you mentioned is one. Broberg as a D man is another. Lavoie and Holloway a bit further down my wishlist but still of some interest. I do like Neighbours in Stl maybe a bit more than Bolduc. Colorado also has a few players of interest but it's unlikely they move many of them. Justin Barron would be a RHD that could be a nice fit here though, and Oskar Olausson as another albeit a winger of lesser value. The Wild have D man Carson Lambos and forward Matthew Boldy. The Stars have centers Logan Stankoven, Mavrik Bourque, and Wyatt Johnston and may not need to keep all three in their stable. So some options to look at for Hughes and Gorton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about once Price plays a few games they package him, Chariot ( retain all Chariot salary ) and Poehling and send to Colorado for Girard, Newhook and Kemper. Should work cap wise for Colorado and help them win the Cup this Year.  Price would likely agree,  Habs get great young talent and out of Price contract going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paul Martin said:

How about once Price plays a few games they package him, Chariot ( retain all Chariot salary ) and Poehling and send to Colorado for Girard, Newhook and Kemper. Should work cap wise for Colorado and help them win the Cup this Year.  Price would likely agree,  Habs get great young talent and out of Price contract going forward.

The max you can retain in salary is 50%. Only works if we retain some of Price's with the players you mention.

Straight up,, there's a difference of 5 mill in our favour (14 million to 9) and the Avs don't have anywhere near that flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough. If habs retain half of Chariot and Poehling I think the difference is around 3.2.   If Colorado cap space is a million this would be worth 3 or more times that amount at trade deadline.  Also Colorado could shrink roster number for regular season or include another player. I think if both teams want to make this work it could be done without Habs retaining any Price salary going forward which to me would be a show stopper. Another big plus in this is that Girard is a Quebec boy.  Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paul Martin said:

Ok fair enough. If habs retain half of Chariot and Poehling I think the difference is around 3.2.   If Colorado cap space is a million this would be worth 3 or more times that amount at trade deadline.  Also Colorado could shrink roster number for regular season or include another player. I think if both teams want to make this work it could be done without Habs retaining any Price salary going forward which to me would be a show stopper. Another big plus in this is that Girard is a Quebec boy.  Thanks

Price isn't going to be moved until he at least plays again. It would no longer surprise me if we've seen him play his last NHL game. But even if Price came back and was stellar, I don't see anyone taking on the full amount of the contract under any circumstance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lehky is one of those guys young enough to hang onto for the rebuild and i would be OK with extending and keeping him, unless somebody offered us one of those "can't turn it down" type of deals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

Lehky is one of those guys young enough to hang onto for the rebuild and i would be OK with extending and keeping him, unless somebody offered us one of those "can't turn it down" type of deals. 

Agreed, some are speculating the Avs as one of the 3 teams interested, NYR have been rumored interested. I think expecting a similar return to Coleman is wishful thinking but maybe we get a 1st + 3rd or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Agreed, some are speculating the Avs as one of the 3 teams interested, NYR have been rumored interested. I think expecting a similar return to Coleman is wishful thinking but maybe we get a 1st + 3rd or something

I know I would not get rid of him for less than a first and even then im not super happy about. If we trade him I hope its for a prospect we target. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, H_T_L said:

Lehky is one of those guys young enough to hang onto for the rebuild and i would be OK with extending and keeping him, unless somebody offered us one of those "can't turn it down" type of deals. 

 

8 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Agreed, some are speculating the Avs as one of the 3 teams interested, NYR have been rumored interested. I think expecting a similar return to Coleman is wishful thinking but maybe we get a 1st + 3rd or something

Agreed that we're in the catbird seat here. By no means are we forced to make a deal, so the other team is going to have to pony up if they want him. That said, this is the last time we're going to have cost control on Lehkonen, as he'll be a UFA after his next deal, and that means we're going to have to start paying a premium to eat up UFA years. After the deals we gave Byron and Armia, I suspect Lehkonen is going to be looking for something similar. So are we really going to be coughing up 4M a year on a 4-5 year deal to keep him here? He's a great depth player, but he has limited offensive ability and I just don't believe in spending money on depth, especially on long-term deals. Look at the past when we've extended Prust, Moen, Byron, Mitchell, Flynn, Armia, etc... not too many deals for bottom 6 forwards that have worked out well and especially the ones that have been 3+ years in length. We can say the same thing about giving out long-term deal to #4-6 D men.

So for me, as good as Lehkonen's been, I'm not interested in paying him for what he's done. He's a useful piece for a Cup contender, but he's not worth paying long-term to keep in the bottom 6, and as soon as you give him the Armia contract, he'll have Armia's current trade potential. Contenders aren't going to want to be saddled with a 4 year-deal on a depth player either.

All that to say that I don't know Lehkonen has the same value as a player as Blake Coleman, who garnered a 1st and a recent 1st rounder in Foote. But he's probably better than Barclay Goodrow, who also fetched a 1st rounder. Also have to remember that as an expiring RFA (whereas Coleman and Goodrow were impending UFAs), Lehkonen has more intrinsic value to the team acquiring him, because they'd have the ability to retain him or get compensation for another team signing him. Then you look at Pageau, who was deat for a 1st and 2nd a couple of years ago, and while a center, he was also largely a guy in a similar role to Lehkonen on the 3rd line, mainly a shutdown energy guy who can score a bit. He was also an impending UFA as opposed to RFA.

All that to say that I don't think a 1st and another piece would be an unreasonable ask for Lehkonen, and if that offer was on the table, I wouldn't hesitate to move him. We already have Armia, Byron, Poehling, Pezzetta, RHP, Pitlick, Ylonen, Vejdemo, and others who can play in the bottom 6, and I'd rather keep the cheaper, younger players and take the return on the trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

Agreed that we're in the catbird seat here. By no means are we forced to make a deal, so the other team is going to have to pony up if they want him. That said, this is the last time we're going to have cost control on Lehkonen, as he'll be a UFA after his next deal, and that means we're going to have to start paying a premium to eat up UFA years. After the deals we gave Byron and Armia, I suspect Lehkonen is going to be looking for something similar. So are we really going to be coughing up 4M a year on a 4-5 year deal to keep him here? He's a great depth player, but he has limited offensive ability and I just don't believe in spending money on depth, especially on long-term deals. Look at the past when we've extended Prust, Moen, Byron, Mitchell, Flynn, Armia, etc... not too many deals for bottom 6 forwards that have worked out well and especially the ones that have been 3+ years in length. We can say the same thing about giving out long-term deal to #4-6 D men.

So for me, as good as Lehkonen's been, I'm not interested in paying him for what he's done. He's a useful piece for a Cup contender, but he's not worth paying long-term to keep in the bottom 6, and as soon as you give him the Armia contract, he'll have Armia's current trade potential. Contenders aren't going to want to be saddled with a 4 year-deal on a depth player either.

All that to say that I don't know Lehkonen has the same value as a player as Blake Coleman, who garnered a 1st and a recent 1st rounder in Foote. But he's probably better than Barclay Goodrow, who also fetched a 1st rounder. Also have to remember that as an expiring RFA (whereas Coleman and Goodrow were impending UFAs), Lehkonen has more intrinsic value to the team acquiring him, because they'd have the ability to retain him or get compensation for another team signing him. Then you look at Pageau, who was deat for a 1st and 2nd a couple of years ago, and while a center, he was also largely a guy in a similar role to Lehkonen on the 3rd line, mainly a shutdown energy guy who can score a bit. He was also an impending UFA as opposed to RFA.

All that to say that I don't think a 1st and another piece would be an unreasonable ask for Lehkonen, and if that offer was on the table, I wouldn't hesitate to move him. We already have Armia, Byron, Poehling, Pezzetta, RHP, Pitlick, Ylonen, Vejdemo, and others who can play in the bottom 6, and I'd rather keep the cheaper, younger players and take the return on the trade.

Good analysis on Lehkonen - Rebuild Objective - REVITALIZING OUR CAP SPACE by deploying cheaper players in these years. Resigning Lehkonen for higher value vs. present does nothing for that objective unless he replaces a higher priced winger role. Lehks presently  is playing at a reasonably high level  so maximum value is obtained.

If you look at our other LW's and those LW able to play right side and vice-versa in our contract pool

1) We are not selling high on Drouin (sadly top 6 material vs/ Lehks) - still young, but has been playing better, but unlikely someone is taking Drouin at $5.5M 

2) Armia contract - the way Joel is playing we would be selling very low on him, probably have to retain salary - IMO nobody is taking this albatross at present

3) Byron - hasn't played enough to attract any suitors unless he really heats up before the trade deadline - Byron offers some ability to play centre. My opinion is Byron is better left until the off season. Byron assuming healthy for the balance of season is just about as effective on the penalty kill as Lehkonen but who cares about this season!

4) Toffoli - personally I like Toffol's fit to the team character, but he is a competing / supplemental piece for teams that miss out on Lehkonen - At $4.25M & beyond he is much more expensive and probably salary retention issue than the cheaper short term $2.3M option of Lehkonen and most trade bidders are cap strapped other than Rangers

5) I would love for someone to be interested in Mike Hoffman but with 2 more years at $4.5M after this, this contract is difficult to move without salary retention

6) Lehkonen as stated is bottom 6 - he's not filling the boots of Anderson, Gallagher. 

By default and supporting your analysis of other cheaper players, it makes perfect sense to deal Lehkonen - I hope we can get a 1st or prospect value for him. In the Rangers prospect pool, I am high on Will Cuylle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, claremont said:

Good analysis on Lehkonen - Rebuild Objective - REVITALIZING OUR CAP SPACE by deploying cheaper players in these years. Resigning Lehkonen for higher value vs. present does nothing for that objective unless he replaces a higher priced winger role. Lehks presently  is playing at a reasonably high level  so maximum value is obtained.

If you look at our other LW's and those LW able to play right side and vice-versa in our contract pool

1) We are not selling high on Drouin (sadly top 6 material vs/ Lehks) - still young, but has been playing better, but unlikely someone is taking Drouin at $5.5M 

2) Armia contract - the way Joel is playing we would be selling very low on him, probably have to retain salary - IMO nobody is taking this albatross at present

3) Byron - hasn't played enough to attract any suitors unless he really heats up before the trade deadline - Byron offers some ability to play centre. My opinion is Byron is better left until the off season. Byron assuming healthy for the balance of season is just about as effective on the penalty kill as Lehkonen but who cares about this season!

4) Toffoli - personally I like Toffol's fit to the team character, but he is a competing / supplemental piece for teams that miss out on Lehkonen - At $4.25M & beyond he is much more expensive and probably salary retention issue than the cheaper short term $2.3M option of Lehkonen and most trade bidders are cap strapped other than Rangers

5) I would love for someone to be interested in Mike Hoffman but with 2 more years at $4.5M after this, this contract is difficult to move without salary retention

6) Lehkonen as stated is bottom 6 - he's not filling the boots of Anderson, Gallagher. 

By default and supporting your analysis of other cheaper players, it makes perfect sense to deal Lehkonen - I hope we can get a 1st or prospect value for him. In the Rangers prospect pool, I am high on Will Cuylle. 

I would love to get either Othemann or Lundqvist from the Rangers and IF we go for prospects instead of picks they might do both (if we are lucky)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from Arpon Basu and MA Godin of The Athletic about Lehkonen, basically saying the same thing I said:

 

His overall play is an argument for keeping him, but logically that would also involve retaining him long-term, which could be costly considering he is one year away from unrestricted free agency. And even if Lehkonen is the most valuable among Joel Armia, Paul Byron and himself, he is the only one of the three that is not signed for next season and the Canadiens can’t continue falling into the trap of overpaying their role players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

This is from Arpon Basu and MA Godin of The Athletic about Lehkonen, basically saying the same thing I said:

 

His overall play is an argument for keeping him, but logically that would also involve retaining him long-term, which could be costly considering he is one year away from unrestricted free agency. And even if Lehkonen is the most valuable among Joel Armia, Paul Byron and himself, he is the only one of the three that is not signed for next season and the Canadiens can’t continue falling into the trap of overpaying their role players.

Great minds think alike or fools seldom differ - just kidding Ted

I am perfectly in synch with your thoughts and Arpon's echo. Lehks would seem to really compliment the Rangers lineup and cap room too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, claremont said:

Great minds think alike or fools seldom differ - just kidding Ted

I am perfectly in synch with your thoughts and Arpon's echo. Lehks would seem to really compliment the Rangers lineup and cap room too. 

ha! I never heard that one

yeah I think we're all in agreement. After reading what Ted wrote I'm even more inclined to trade him and I think a 1st + whatever the + is or even just a first that has a chance at being a lottery pick and is unportected, I think its worth moving him for. 

I think there is a good chance Chiarot and Lehks get moved for 1sts +. I don't think we can move Allen or Price anymore, not this year anyway, but do you think we can move one of our long-term wingers like Gallagher or Toffoli? I hate saying that becasue they are both valuable players that I like and COULD be useful in a rebuild (if they want to do that). But those are the players where you look at them from one angle and you think just too many years remaining, overpaid (more in Gallagher's case) but then you squint a little and you're like that's a guy on a championship team, that someone could be interested in, same with Petry. I say all this because to me that signals rebuild. Even Bergevin would have trade Chiarot (I'm not sure about Lehks to be honest), but the rebuild move is moving one or two of Petry/Toffoli/Gallagher

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, habsisme said:

ha! I never heard that one

yeah I think we're all in agreement. After reading what Ted wrote I'm even more inclined to trade him and I think a 1st + whatever the + is or even just a first that has a chance at being a lottery pick and is unportected, I think its worth moving him for. 

I think there is a good chance Chiarot and Lehks get moved for 1sts +. I don't think we can move Allen or Price anymore, not this year anyway, but do you think we can move one of our long-term wingers like Gallagher or Toffoli? I hate saying that becasue they are both valuable players that I like and COULD be useful in a rebuild (if they want to do that). But those are the players where you look at them from one angle and you think just too many years remaining, overpaid (more in Gallagher's case) but then you squint a little and you're like that's a guy on a championship team, that someone could be interested in, same with Petry. I say all this because to me that signals rebuild. Even Bergevin would have trade Chiarot (I'm not sure about Lehks to be honest), but the rebuild move is moving one or two of Petry/Toffoli/Gallagher

 

Here's the thing: a lot of fans think about keeping or moving on from players as a choice between keeping he guy you have now on a similar contract vs. dealing him. When Price was an impending free agent and Bergevin signed him to the long-term deal at 10.5M, a lot of fans complained that they would have signed him to a better deal. But in truth, Price heading for unrestricted free agency, he had the power to drive the deal he wanted. Do we really think Price asked for 8M and Bergevin said "no Carey, let me give you more, you deserve it"? Bergevin's choices were either to take the long-term deal or to look at trading Price, and obviously he felt that he didn't have an adequate enough solution to replace Carey. Similarly, we acquired Josh Anderson and gave him a long-term deal, and Anderson was up front about what he asked for and said outright that he either wanted the long-term deal he got or he wanted a one-year deal so he could test the UFA market the year after. So what is Bergevin supposed to do there? Those are his options. It was clear that the team didn't have an option of giving out a 3-4 year deal.

So similar situation here with Lehkonen. Thus far in his career, he's been an RFA and he's been stuck without much bargaining power. But as players move into their UFA years, the control shifts to them. So Lehkonen has one more year where we own his rights. But that also means we can't control his costs for 3-4 years. We can no longer offer him a 3 year deal at 2.5M a season and expect him to take that. Yes, he may not be able to avoid taking 2.8-3.25M on a one year deal next year, but then after that, he's a UFA and can go where he wants. The Habs can't force him to accept a 2-3 year deal and they can't force him to stay without a raise when he could likely get a 4M a year deal on the open market a season from now. So to me, the Habs choices are

1. Trade him now

2. Sign him to a 1-year deal and then trade him next year or lose him to free agency

3. Sign him to a longer-term deal similar to what Armia got (don't see why he would accept less)

To me, 3 is not a great option, and I think the return we would get this year for a 26 year-old impending RFA would be a bit better than next season for a 27-year old impending UFA on a slightly higher AAV. Since we're not winning a Cup next year, I simply see trading him this year as being the better bet. Unless Hughes can unload both Armia and Byron's contracts, doesn't make a lot of sense to keep Lehkonen long-term, and frankly, I'd rather trade Lehkonen when his value is good and keep Armia and Byron, and see if their values rise as they get closer to free agency again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Here's the thing: a lot of fans think about keeping or moving on from players as a choice between keeping he guy you have now on a similar contract vs. dealing him. When Price was an impending free agent and Bergevin signed him to the long-term deal at 10.5M, a lot of fans complained that they would have signed him to a better deal. But in truth, Price heading for unrestricted free agency, he had the power to drive the deal he wanted. Do we really think Price asked for 8M and Bergevin said "no Carey, let me give you more, you deserve it"? Bergevin's choices were either to take the long-term deal or to look at trading Price, and obviously he felt that he didn't have an adequate enough solution to replace Carey. Similarly, we acquired Josh Anderson and gave him a long-term deal, and Anderson was up front about what he asked for and said outright that he either wanted the long-term deal he got or he wanted a one-year deal so he could test the UFA market the year after. So what is Bergevin supposed to do there? Those are his options. It was clear that the team didn't have an option of giving out a 3-4 year deal.

So similar situation here with Lehkonen. Thus far in his career, he's been an RFA and he's been stuck without much bargaining power. But as players move into their UFA years, the control shifts to them. So Lehkonen has one more year where we own his rights. But that also means we can't control his costs for 3-4 years. We can no longer offer him a 3 year deal at 2.5M a season and expect him to take that. Yes, he may not be able to avoid taking 2.8-3.25M on a one year deal next year, but then after that, he's a UFA and can go where he wants. The Habs can't force him to accept a 2-3 year deal and they can't force him to stay without a raise when he could likely get a 4M a year deal on the open market a season from now. So to me, the Habs choices are

1. Trade him now

2. Sign him to a 1-year deal and then trade him next year or lose him to free agency

3. Sign him to a longer-term deal similar to what Armia got (don't see why he would accept less)

To me, 3 is not a great option, and I think the return we would get this year for a 26 year-old impending RFA would be a bit better than next season for a 27-year old impending UFA on a slightly higher AAV. Since we're not winning a Cup next year, I simply see trading him this year as being the better bet. Unless Hughes can unload both Armia and Byron's contracts, doesn't make a lot of sense to keep Lehkonen long-term, and frankly, I'd rather trade Lehkonen when his value is good and keep Armia and Byron, and see if their values rise as they get closer to free agency again.

yeah I agree, and part of the reason you can trade Lehks, is you have those other bottom 6 wingers that add different dimensions to your team. We're loaded on wing. I just hope we also find a way to move one the other contracts too, not just Chiarot and Lehks

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...