|
Post by christrpn on Jun 26, 2014 17:51:41 GMT -5
Then we have no room at the deadline if we need to pick up that one player that might take us over the top. 16-8=8-2(eller)=6. Mighty slim pickins if you want Vanek AND a defender. $3 million in cap space (hypothetically) gets you more player the later in the season you acquire, so there is theoretically more room at the dead line. $6M, minus $1.5M for Weaver (keep in mind we need better than weaver on d) leaves $4.5M to sign a Vanek type......Anyone think of a vanek type that will play in Montreal for $4.5M- 49%TX? ? We would still need ONE more RW(at least) because we haven't signed Gionta. Now we have 0 in cap sapae and Markov gets injured. Can't replace him at the deadline because we have no more money. No depth at C because we have DD,Pleks,Eller and Briere, we didn't sign White or replace him. On the right we have Vanek,Gallagher ? and Weise. Left side isn't much better: Patches, Galchenyuk, Bourque and Moen/Prust. If we move Galchenyuk to center we lose a LW and have to replace him. Or suffer Bourque/prust or moen on the second line.
|
|
|
Post by Bobs_HABit on Jun 26, 2014 17:59:24 GMT -5
I think Berg is right guys (re: the Cap), you're all just looking at the wrong year. I've noticed for a while now that the roster management had created a logjam. Assume that PK and a few other players (current and/or new) are signed for market value and the Habs come in at $1m under the cap to get through this season...
Now look at 2015/16. On the current roster, the team has only two expiring contracts (Briere - $4 and Budaj - $1.4). How quickly do you think that $5.4 million gets eaten up by the following RFA's... Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Bournivall, Tinordi and Beaulieu plus the two roster players that replace Briere and Budaj. Berg better be hoping/counting on a rather larger cap increase and those of you that thought he was hard on PK with his bridge contract better brace themselves for the offers to these 5.
It's a reason why I firmly believe Plekanec's is gone, although, that said, I thought he would let Markov walk to give himself some breathing room next season. It's also a reason I could see Gionta and/or Bouillon given a 1-yr deal as kind of a buffer to assign cap space to next season.
In 2016/17, we have over $13 mill in expiring contracts so that should be a better offseason.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 26, 2014 18:17:22 GMT -5
There's no doubt that things are tighter this summer than they would be next. That's on berg though. $4 million to Briere is something of a noose. Signing Gionta hurts them too.
Even if they keep Plekanec, there's room to add one "Vanek". Remove him, and you can address other needs.
CAPGEEK.COM ARMCHAIR GM ROSTER CapGeek Armchair GM Roster FORWARDS Max Pacioretty ($4.500m) / David Desharnais ($3.500m) / Alex Galchenyuk ($0.925m) / Tomas Plekanec ($5.000m) / Brendan Gallagher ($0.685m) Dale Weise ($1.025m) / Lars Eller ($1.500m) / Rene Bourque ($3.333m) Brandon Prust ($2.500m) / Ryan White ($0.735m) / Travis Moen ($1.850m) Daniel Briere ($4.000m) / DEFENSEMEN Andrei Markov ($5.750m) / Alexei Emelin ($4.100m) Josh Gorges ($3.900m) / Nathan Beaulieu ($0.925m) Jarred Tinordi ($0.870m) / P.K. Subban ($8.000m) GOALTENDERS Carey Price ($6.500m) Peter Budaj ($1.400m) BUYOUTS Tomas Kaberle ($0.000m) Scott Gomez ($0.000m) BONUS OVERAGE $0 ------ CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter) (estimations for 2014-15) SALARY CAP: $71,100,000; CAP PAYROLL: $60,998,333; BONUSES: $3,047,500 CAP SPACE (20-man roster): $10,101,667
If you leave the bonus number there's certainly enough to add a Moulson type (at minimum), maybe Iggy short term. I think signing Weaver for what he made this year should be easy. No need to go 400k beyond it. I've qualified White, Eller, and signed PK to $8 million. There's room to add a solid offensive contributor.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 26, 2014 18:18:55 GMT -5
We're not a Vanek away from the cup. While we may not have won, with a healthy Price and an offensive threat we are a Finals team. I'd take my chances against LA with Price and a Vanek I agree with christrpn's comment…and the first part of Skilly's. Yes, we likely would've beaten the Rangers if Price hadn't been steamrolled. Even though Tokarski played admirably, I still don't think he instilled the "Price confidence". Yes, we made the same defensive gaffes with Price behind us…but the offensive push remained. Not so much after #31 went down. Whenever we DID push, Lundqvist was there--except for Game 5 when Bourque should've bought a lottery ticket as well. Take our chances against LA? Would've been a slim chance, especially the way Quick played. With Vanek entombed on the fourth line, there's no way he'd have helped against the Kings. We'd have needed at least a Justin Williams-type to do that, and a ton more muscle. Vanek is nowhere close to being that type of player. So….we likely would've been a Finals team with a healthy Price…but we're also not just a Vanek away from the Cup, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 26, 2014 18:24:47 GMT -5
Considering the Rags to the Kings to OT three times, I'd liked to have seen what we could have done with a healthy Price and Vanek playing where he should have been.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 26, 2014 18:25:14 GMT -5
Something tells me that there is more then meets the eye with Vanek. Something along the lines of "I don't care" which would be poison with MB. I read last month somewhere that even Minnesota is sucking back a bit ... I really liked seeing this guy bury a few goals with us, but Bergevin was right up front about why he acquired him ... Doc's reference cites Bergevin knowing that Vanek didn't fit into his budget but he went out and got him for the playoff run ... kind of deviates from his "I don't like rentals" posture ... but, hey ... great pick up for the playoff run and it also tells us he's active and he's willing to add pieces when it's best for the team ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 26, 2014 18:28:27 GMT -5
I think Berg is right guys (re: the Cap), you're all just looking at the wrong year. I've noticed for a while now that the roster management had created a logjam. Assume that PK and a few other players (current and/or new) are signed for market value and the Habs come in at $1m under the cap to get through this season... Now look at 2015/16. On the current roster, the team has only two expiring contracts (Briere - $4 and Budaj - $1.4). How quickly do you think that $5.4 million gets eaten up by the following RFA's... Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Bournivall, Tinordi and Beaulieu plus the two roster players that replace Briere and Budaj. Berg better be hoping/counting on a rather larger cap increase and those of you that thought he was hard on PK with his bridge contract better brace themselves for the offers to these 5. It's a reason why I firmly believe Plekanec's is gone, although, that said, I thought he would let Markov walk to give himself some breathing room next season. It's also a reason I could see Gionta and/or Bouillon given a 1-yr deal as kind of a buffer to assign cap space to next season. In 2016/17, we have over $13 mill in expiring contracts so that should be a better offseason. Good post Bob ... Bergevin will have the core of this team intact for a while yet ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 26, 2014 18:32:22 GMT -5
Considering the Rags to the Kings to OT three times, I'd liked to have seen what we could have done with a healthy Price and Vanek playing where he should have been. I think the door closed on us after game 5 ... both Emelin and Weise were out of the lineup and that pretty much did it, or so I thought, anyway ... we had a good chance at getting to the final and who'd know after that ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 26, 2014 19:18:20 GMT -5
While we may not have won, with a healthy Price and an offensive threat we are a Finals team. I'd take my chances against LA with Price and a Vanek I agree with christrpn's comment…and the first part of Skilly's. Yes, we likely would've beaten the Rangers if Price hadn't been steamrolled. Even though Tokarski played admirably, I still don't think he instilled the "Price confidence". Yes, we made the same defensive gaffes with Price behind us…but the offensive push remained. Not so much after #31 went down. Whenever we DID push, Lundqvist was there--except for Game 5 when Bourque should've bought a lottery ticket as well. Take our chances against LA? Would've been a slim chance, especially the way Quick played. With Vanek entombed on the fourth line, there's no way he'd have helped against the Kings. We'd have needed at least a Justin Williams-type to do that, and a ton more muscle. Vanek is nowhere close to being that type of player. So….we likely would've been a Finals team with a healthy Price…but we're also not just a Vanek away from the Cup, IMO. "Offensive threat" .... I assume that if we sign "a Vanek" (not necessarily the Vanek) he won't be buried on the fourth line. So yes, I'd take my chances with a healthy Price and an offensive Vanek threat (again not a fourth line Vanek) any day
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 26, 2014 19:18:53 GMT -5
Considering the Rags to the Kings to OT three times, I'd liked to have seen what we could have done with a healthy Price and Vanek playing where he should have been. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 26, 2014 19:22:44 GMT -5
Looking ahead, I think Berg can clear cap space by trading guys like Prust, Moen, Bourque, and Gorges if that's what Berg has to do to make room for bigger contracts for Gallagher and Galchenyuk. I'm not worried about that. Good GMs can figure that out.
What annoys me is the excuses. Whether its Vanek or somebody else, we need what that kind of player brings to the table. Maybe Berg and MT believe their own b.s. that we almost beat the Rangers with Vanek on the 4th line so , hey, we must not need him. But the cap space excuse is just plain dumb and ii don't buy it.
We need upgrades on this roster pronto. Either a top 6 forward or a top 4 dman, preferably both. But Berg seems perfectly content to let Vanek walk and just wait for the flowers to bloom.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 26, 2014 21:16:41 GMT -5
Considering the Rags to the Kings to OT three times, I'd liked to have seen what we could have done with a healthy Price and Vanek playing where he should have been. Exactly No argument there….would've been our best shot for sure. But the Kings were go go go with the muscle to back it up. We're certainly not there yet....which I think is christrpn's point: "not just a Vanek away from a Cup". Even in his proper place. Still would've been nice to have been in the Finals…..anything can happen. Perhaps Quick gets an "unfortunate" injury from Weise losing his footing a la Kreider. "Completely unintentional," says Weise...after being suspended for the remainder of the series.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 26, 2014 22:28:14 GMT -5
Vanek was a no-show in the playoffs when we needed him, and then blamed it on the coach. This on a team that preaches "no excuses". Not a chance he was coming back, and why would we want him. We need players that are going to compete in the playoffs, not daydream about the spring vacation they'd rather be on.
Even had he performed in the playoffs there's still huge risk to signing Vanek. You can't commit the dollars and term he's looking for to many roster players, so you'd better make sure it's the right guys you're betting on, with high probability of delivering expected value for the full term. For a player that's signing a contract for most of his 30ies, with only one 80pt and one 70pt season, he's not worth elite money. You can pretty much count on a decline in the near future, and I'm glad the Habs won't be stuck with the contract. End of rant.
That said I fully agree that we need a replacement in order to avoid a step backwards. I like Iginla for a 2-3 year deal if it's an option. I'd also explore the trade market, as a guy like Perron was available last year for comparable return to what we paid for Vanek (2nd and a prospect).
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 27, 2014 6:11:42 GMT -5
Vanek was a no-show in the playoffs when we needed him, and then blamed it on the coach. This on a team that preaches "no excuses". Not a chance he was coming back, and why would we want him. We need players that are going to compete in the playoffs, not daydream about the spring vacation they'd rather be on. Even had he performed in the playoffs there's still huge risk to signing Vanek. You can't commit the dollars and term he's looking for to many roster players, so you'd better make sure it's the right guys you're betting on, with high probability of delivering expected value for the full term. For a player that's signing a contract for most of his 30ies, with only one 80pt and one 70pt season, he's not worth elite money. You can pretty much count on a decline in the near future, and I'm glad the Habs won't be stuck with the contract. End of rant. That said I fully agree that we need a replacement in order to avoid a step backwards. I like Iginla for a 2-3 year deal if it's an option. I'd also explore the trade market, as a guy like Perron was available last year for comparable return to what we paid for Vanek (2nd and a prospect). Excellent post Andrew. I agree totally. Vanek was not an MB type player. MB took a shot, paid nothing for Vanek and they went to the ECF. I agree with what MB did, he showed the players he would bring in players at the deadline and they gave the fans a deep playoff run and it cost MB next to nothing to do it. Also, our young guys learned what it takes to go deep in the playoffs, you can't buy that kind of experience.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 27, 2014 7:02:18 GMT -5
Looking ahead, I think Berg can clear cap space by trading guys like Prust, Moen, Bourque, and Gorges if that's what Berg has to do to make room for bigger contracts for Gallagher and Galchenyuk. I'm not worried about that. Good GMs can figure that out. What annoys me is the excuses. Whether its Vanek or somebody else, we need what that kind of player brings to the table. Maybe Berg and MT believe their own b.s. that we almost beat the Rangers with Vanek on the 4th line so , hey, we must not need him. But the cap space excuse is just plain dumb and ii don't buy it. We need upgrades on this roster pronto. Either a top 6 forward or a top 4 dman, preferably both. But Berg seems perfectly content to let Vanek walk and just wait for the flowers to bloom. I agree that cap space can always be found, and while Bob's point about needing the space in years to come is a valid one, I too think it can be managed. Having said that, I put about as much stock in what Bergevin says at a press conference as I put in, well, anything that comes out of PJ Stock's mouth. In other words, none. Unlike others I thought Bob Gainey was painfully honest, and actually told us exactly what he was going to do. Pierre Gauthier on the other hand, I thought was secretive to the point of excess. I find Bergevin, so far, to be somewhat in the middle compared to those two extremes. I think he is probably a little more "new media" savvy than the other two, and while I wouldn't say he plays them, I think he is well aware of what he is saying, and he says what he says for a reason. Anywhoo, enough psycho-babble. I would have considered re-signing Vanek, and I agree 100% that we need a Vanek-like player. However, if Vanek is not that guy, for whatever reasons, then I don't want them to sign him, or anybody else for that matter, just to sign a guy. I think this team is a playoff team without a Vanek-like player, so there is no rush. Bergevin can wait until the next trade deadline if need be. It's still early, and undoubtedly subject to change, but next year's free agency crop looks to be better than this year's, which could potentially mean that there will be more or perhaps even better guys available as rentals next spring. You don't want to lock yourself into a guy that doesn't fit for you, just because he's available. Montreal needs THE guy. Not A guy. I get the feeling that Bergevin is working on something for this summer, but I won't be disappointed if it doesn't come to fruition. I'll give him until next year's deadline to see what he's really got planned. It's the same leeway I gave him last season, and he used that extra rope to great advantage. I'm willing to wait. A little.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 27, 2014 8:12:11 GMT -5
I would have considered re-signing Vanek, and I agree 100% that we need a Vanek-like player. However, if Vanek is not that guy, for whatever reasons, then I don't want them to sign him, or anybody else for that matter, just to sign a guy.....Montreal needs THE guy. Not A guy. I get the feeling that Bergevin is working on something for this summer, but I won't be disappointed if it doesn't come to fruition. I'll give him until next year's deadline to see what he's really got planned. It's the same leeway I gave him last season, and he used that extra rope to great advantage. I'm willing to wait. A little. I agree with that. I've never been a proponent of signing a guy just because he's available. That's what we did with Gionta and Cammalleri. The problem I have is I think is people are placing too much value on Vanek's poor playoff performance as if that 17-game sample is worth more than what the guy has done over the course of his career and that's be a very productive and talented offensive player. Just like Lars Eller had a great playoff with 13 points in 17 games, but should we use those 17 games to assume he can do that in the regular season? I get that we don't have a view into what went on behind the scenes, but it almost strikes me as arrogant to simply not even offer the guy a contract given how bad we were last year on offense, and given the lack of options we have internally. And there was obvious chemistry with DD and Patches. I suspect MT just didn't like the guy. Too soft, not "tough" enough. I think waiting to the deadline again isn't a plan. It worked out this year with Vanek (and I give Berg great credit for being Johnny on the spot there), but that's not when you build your team. If Berg is going to do something, then he should do it now.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 27, 2014 9:03:10 GMT -5
...Personally I'm not so sure we're a playoff team without Vanek... Prior to the Vanek acquisition HABS were a team losing ground fast... Maybe we would have made the playoffs without him, but maybe not... And that was on a season where we were formidably healthy... I also want to say that yesterday Bergevin did not say he got Vanek for the playoff... he said he got Vanek to make the playoff... big difference... If Bergevin felt he needed Vanek to make playoffs last year, I don't see how he could feel that he won't need him this year... I don't buy the cap thing either, IMO he did not want to retain Vanek because he saw, as we all did, what Therrien was doing with him... it's one thing to have Therrien staple Brière to the 4th line with his 4mil/2yrs contract, it's another one to have Therrien staple Vanek to the 4th line with his 7mil/7yrs contract... Once you chose Therrien, you can't chose Vanek...
...but bringing the cap issue is the perfect excuse to justify not keeping Vanek AND to justify any other future missed opportunities of the summer... "...we tried...but you know...the cap..."...
As BC said, Bergevin is good to play the media. Notice he always, always downplays the expectations. You hear stuff from him like "...we're going to be among a group of teams that competes for a playoff spot...", "...our team is not mature like LA or Chicago...", "...I don't want to build a team via UFA...", "...making a trade is tough, everybody wants the same players...", "...I'm not going to sacrifice the future for short term help...", etc...
Reality is that in 2 summers he actually signed 6 UFAs and he traded a high prospect and a second for a few weeks of Vanek...
So like BC I take what Bergevin says with a grain of salt.
...he knows he needs a productive winger... I mean he tried Ryder, he tried Brière, he tried Vanek... For sure he's going to try "something"... He might not succeed but he'll try fer sure...
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 27, 2014 10:36:58 GMT -5
...Personally I'm not so sure we're a playoff team without Vanek.. Exactly. We'll see what Berg has up his sleeve, but I'm shocked by how casually Vanek has been disregarded. The only way this has a happy ending is if Bergevin actually does something to improve the roster.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 27, 2014 10:49:50 GMT -5
...as I said I feel Vanek was dismissed because Therrien doesn't want him. Bergevin sure isn't going to sign another high price UFA for his coach's dog house...
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 27, 2014 11:06:19 GMT -5
...as I said I feel Vanek was dismissed because Therrien doesn't want him. Bergevin sure isn't going to sign another high price UFA for his coach's dog house... What about high priced coaches in the dog house of the players?
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 27, 2014 11:42:08 GMT -5
...as I said I feel Vanek was dismissed because Therrien doesn't want him. Bergevin sure isn't going to sign another high price UFA for his coach's dog house... If MB believes Vanek to be a quality part of our future, then he shouldn't allow his coach to impede team progress. I'm sure they've had discussions, and MB has agreed with Vanek's eventual fourth line playoff usage. I also remember Carbonneau benching Kovalev for most of the third period in our 6-5 loss to Toronto in the final game of 2007. Kovalev was also non-existent in New York the game before in a losing effort, which made the Toronto game a MUST win to make the playoffs. (I also recall with glee that the Islanders beat the Devils in a SO the next day…knocking Toronto out as well.) Cherry had warned the Devils that they'd better not start Clemmensen. They started Clemmensen. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 27, 2014 12:05:27 GMT -5
I would have considered re-signing Vanek, and I agree 100% that we need a Vanek-like player. However, if Vanek is not that guy, for whatever reasons, then I don't want them to sign him, or anybody else for that matter, just to sign a guy.....Montreal needs THE guy. Not A guy. I get the feeling that Bergevin is working on something for this summer, but I won't be disappointed if it doesn't come to fruition. I'll give him until next year's deadline to see what he's really got planned. It's the same leeway I gave him last season, and he used that extra rope to great advantage. I'm willing to wait. A little. The problem I have is I think is people are placing too much value on Vanek's poor playoff performance as if that 17-game sample is worth more than what the guy has done over the course of his career and that's be a very productive and talented offensive player. Just like Lars Eller had a great playoff with 13 points in 17 games, but should we use those 17 games to assume he can do that in the regular season? Umm, actually the odds of that happening aren't that bad. One of the things I look at when I spend time analyzing prospects to draft or players to trade for, is guys who elevated their game in the playoffs. While it's not a guarantee of anything, it's an indication that the player improved. Hockey players don't usually get better in a nice, steady manner, like the graph of a Money market fund, which goes up slowly in a predictable manner. They're more like a stock that jumps around a bit and then rises suddenly to a new plateau. That jump often occurs between seasons, or between a regular season and a playoff. I like to compare it to a guy who realizes they really haven't done much, but understands that the playoffs are a brand new start, so they toss away their old baggage and play with a re-invigorated passion. Anyway, the point is that this can often happen when a playoffs start, so Eller may indeed have found a new level for his play. I suspect he has. I think most of his points were reasonably earned and not simply the result of being the second assist on a great play by someone else. One would have to review all his playoff points to be sure, though.
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Jun 27, 2014 12:57:03 GMT -5
I think that many here are too quick to throw the blame at the Borg for stating that Vanek will not be back. Does anyone really know who made the decision? Was it the team or Vanek himself that decided not to re-sign? Maybe Vanek pulled a Cartman* and told the Habs "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"
*South Park reference.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 27, 2014 13:09:45 GMT -5
Doesn't have cap room my ass. If Bergevin says it's a problem I would believe him rather than your ass. Why? Vanek probably wants a long term contract with an effect on the cap for many years in the future. Are you willing to put up with that? I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 27, 2014 13:16:12 GMT -5
Doesn't have cap room my ass. If Bergevin says it's a problem I would believe him rather than your ass. Why? Vanek probably wants a long term contract with an effect on the cap for many years in the future. Are you willing to put up with that? I'm not. Capgeek doesn't lie. The room is there.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jun 27, 2014 13:36:49 GMT -5
A lot of the speculation can end tonight.
|
|