|
Post by jkr on Jun 15, 2016 11:54:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 15, 2016 12:15:11 GMT -5
Just came in to post this. Hawks got an okay return, but bottom line is they gave up a fairly coveted first round player in TT in order to get rid of Bickell.
Teams with space, willing to take a cap dump, have just seen the market set. For the Wings, who are looking to potentially party with the final year of Datsyuk's contract, they're going to have to fork over a lot to do it.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 15, 2016 12:23:13 GMT -5
It might also be that the Hawks would have had to expose Terevainen in the expansion draft. They got Panarin for 'free', and Terevainen is another smaller, skilled player. I like him a lot and wish we could have put together some kind of deal like that. Surely we could have moved Pleks for very little and freed up the cap space for Bickell? Good deal for Ron Francis. There goes that top 6 forward we were looking for.
It looks like CAP space is starting to generate the kind of value it should have done long ago. It confirms more than ever that you have to tread very carefully when issuing long term contracts. And you certainly shouldn't do it with bottom 6 forwards or bottom 2 dmen.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 15, 2016 13:50:36 GMT -5
For the Wings, who are looking to potentially party with the final year of Datsyuk's contract, they're going to have to fork over a lot to do it. That's a big contract. Should be a heck of a party.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 15, 2016 14:42:28 GMT -5
I'm still shocked over this trade. Bickell's got one year left on his contract, so the expansion draft isn't an issue. It looks like its simply the cost of CAP space in order to keep someone else (Shaw?). Shaw's a decent player but his upside isn't nearly what Terevainen's is. I guess the Hawks feel Shaw's type of player complements the rest of the skill on the team, while TT is more of the same type of skill they already have. We could have easily matched that trade. Our own second 2nd rounder is better than the one Carolina gave up and we can afford a 3rd rounder for 2017. Were we even in on that deal? It just seems odd and I'd certainly clear cap space if it involved picking up a guy like Terevainen. It's just one year of Bickell. Desharnais alone is almost the same cap hit. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 15, 2016 15:06:48 GMT -5
For the Wings, who are looking to potentially party with the final year of Datsyuk's contract, they're going to have to fork over a lot to do it. That's a big contract. Should be a heck of a party. LOL darn auto correct.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 15, 2016 15:49:02 GMT -5
I'm still shocked over this trade. Bickell's got one year left on his contract, so the expansion draft isn't an issue. It looks like its simply the cost of CAP space in order to keep someone else (Shaw?). Shaw's a decent player but his upside isn't nearly what Terevainen's is. I guess the Hawks feel Shaw's type of player complements the rest of the skill on the team, while TT is more of the same type of skill they already have. We could have easily matched that trade. Our own second 2nd rounder is better than the one Carolina gave up and we can afford a 3rd rounder for 2017. Were we even in on that deal? It just seems odd and I'd certainly clear cap space if it involved picking up a guy like Terevainen. It's just one year of Bickell. Desharnais alone is almost the same cap hit. Am I missing something? It's hard to make trades in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 15, 2016 16:05:19 GMT -5
I'm still shocked over this trade. Bickell's got one year left on his contract, so the expansion draft isn't an issue. It looks like its simply the cost of CAP space in order to keep someone else (Shaw?). Shaw's a decent player but his upside isn't nearly what Terevainen's is. I guess the Hawks feel Shaw's type of player complements the rest of the skill on the team, while TT is more of the same type of skill they already have. We could have easily matched that trade. Our own second 2nd rounder is better than the one Carolina gave up and we can afford a 3rd rounder for 2017. Were we even in on that deal? It just seems odd and I'd certainly clear cap space if it involved picking up a guy like Terevainen. It's just one year of Bickell. Desharnais alone is almost the same cap hit. Am I missing something? It's hard to make trades in the NHL. LOL
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Jun 15, 2016 16:46:21 GMT -5
Yup pretty damn hard when you extend and over play players that should be moving along. Should the Hawks get Malkin or sign Stamkos MB will still be wondering how to make a real deal....guess he forgot his notes in Chicago or maybe he just didn't take any.
Next 3 weeks will tell the tale if there is a chance for this teams fortunes to change.
I'm dying to send bushels of praises and apologies and re new hope that this team is t wasting it's window of opportunity.
HFTO
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 15, 2016 17:09:40 GMT -5
I'm still shocked over this trade. Bickell's got one year left on his contract, so the expansion draft isn't an issue. It looks like its simply the cost of CAP space in order to keep someone else (Shaw?). Shaw's a decent player but his upside isn't nearly what Terevainen's is. I guess the Hawks feel Shaw's type of player complements the rest of the skill on the team, while TT is more of the same type of skill they already have. We could have easily matched that trade. Our own second 2nd rounder is better than the one Carolina gave up and we can afford a 3rd rounder for 2017. Were we even in on that deal? It just seems odd and I'd certainly clear cap space if it involved picking up a guy like Terevainen. It's just one year of Bickell. Desharnais alone is almost the same cap hit. Am I missing something? It's hard to make trades in the NHL. It's certainly hard to trade a rowboat for a battleship. Maybe if you were ok with trading a cruiser for battleship that needs minor repairs, it wouldn't be so hard. Not so good to put those repairs in the hands of a mediocre mechanic, though. Then, the trade looks bad.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 15, 2016 17:18:55 GMT -5
Neither player is the legit top six forward we need ....
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 15, 2016 18:23:12 GMT -5
Neither player is the legit top six forward we need .... Ding ding ding. Berg likely knows Bickell all too well. The league and players haven't agreed upon the cap ceiling for next year yet. Bickell, even for a year, is a large commitment when you've got room for one or two pieces. If Montreal were in a rebuild, and had cap space to burn, that's the kind of deal you look to make. "I'll take your crap, but you're gonna pay me to do it."
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 15, 2016 18:50:24 GMT -5
That said, if Berg doesn't make any significant changes to our Top 6, the Canes will likely give us more trouble next season than they usually do….
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 15, 2016 18:54:33 GMT -5
That said, if Berg doesn't make any significant changes to our Top 6, the Canes will likely give us more trouble next season than they usually do…. Everyone outside the club knows he has to add. I dare say he knows he has to add. Bickell sure isn't it. Teuvo might have caught lightning in a bottle, but he had his chances in Chicago with some great players. Panarin came in and stole the spot from him.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 15, 2016 23:31:37 GMT -5
I'm mildly annoyed at this deal - I feel it should've been us giving up a 2nd and a 3d (BTW, those weren't Carolina's picks, the 2nd rounder is a NYR one...) - Bickell's deal is done in a year and Teravainen still has massive potential and would be a good fit on our team.
Bergeron had better have some seriously dirty inside info on Teravainen to have passed up on this deal.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 16, 2016 2:03:33 GMT -5
Neither player is the legit top six forward we need .... Ding ding ding. Berg likely knows Bickell all too well. The league and players haven't agreed upon the cap ceiling for next year yet. Bickell, even for a year, is a large commitment when you've got room for one or two pieces. If Montreal were in a rebuild, and had cap space to burn, that's the kind of deal you look to make. "I'll take your crap, but you're gonna pay me to do it." I don't think you should ever pass up a chance to get a good young player with TT's potential. Bickell is the price. You make up cap space somewhere else to cover the $4MM salary for a year and then you reap the rewards for the next 10 years. You have to take advantage of other GM's problems and if Terevainen turns into a good player, I'll be annoyed with Bergevin for not getting him. Our worst second rounder this year is better than the one Carolina gave up.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 16, 2016 7:55:19 GMT -5
Ding ding ding. Berg likely knows Bickell all too well. The league and players haven't agreed upon the cap ceiling for next year yet. Bickell, even for a year, is a large commitment when you've got room for one or two pieces. If Montreal were in a rebuild, and had cap space to burn, that's the kind of deal you look to make. "I'll take your crap, but you're gonna pay me to do it." I don't think you should ever pass up a chance to get a good young player with TT's potential. Bickell is the price. You make up cap space somewhere else to cover the $4MM salary for a year and then you reap the rewards for the next 10 years. You have to take advantage of other GM's problems and if Terevainen turns into a good player, I'll be annoyed with Bergevin for not getting him. Our worst second rounder this year is better than the one Carolina gave up. We've already got one dead weight contract - Desharnais. If we have to do a trade like the Bickell one to get rid of him, it would seem counter productive at least.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 16, 2016 8:31:53 GMT -5
I like Teravainen, and the potential is still there, but we'd be taking on close to $5 million in cap space for what right now looks like a guy who cleared waivers, and a small, 35 point center. That's Teravainen's career high. Now granted he's only 21, but he turns 22 in September, and he really hasn't shown much so far. Despite playing for the great Joel Quenneville and the offensively loaded Chicago Blackhawks. Even his AHL numbers aren't exactly stellar; 6 goals, 25 points in 39 games. Many people were suggesting back in 2012 that we were going to take Teravainen instead of Galchenyuk, but if you look at their career arcs so far there is just no comparison.
Again, I like Teravainen, I think he has wonderful potential, and I would have thought long and hard about making a similar offer. But I get why Bergevin didn't. You're trying to catch lightning in a bottle, much like he did with Sekac, DSP, and even guys like Carr and Holloway. If it works, you're a genius, and I guess it's an acceptable gamble if all it's costing you is minor cap money. But if Teravainen doesn't pan out we're left with a small, third line offensive center who doesn't put up points, and who comes with a big cap hit (because of Bickell). Aren't we trying to move away from that?
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 16, 2016 10:33:45 GMT -5
Well, the guys in the front office get paid the big bucks for deciding who'll make it and who won't and they must have concluded Terevainen wouldn't be worth it in the long run. From what I saw of TT, I'd have come to a different conclusion, and if Bickell had more than one year left on his deal, I'd have passed as well. Different judgment call, obviously. I'd be more arrogant at this point, but Sekac holds me back.
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jun 16, 2016 14:01:33 GMT -5
Berg not getting TT will be moot if he is able to land a legitimate top six guy in the free agent market in July. If the offense looks mainly the same in the fall with the exception of Lehkonen and Reway battling for spots, then his new key message will have to be "it is difficult to make trades when you are far too risk averse".
The reality is we likely will never know for sure if Berg was even in on these discussions. That sort of intel sometimes sneaks out years down the road, sometimes from a legitimate source and sometimes still pure speculation. From what I have seen of the Berg's MO, he does not share details of deals (whether made or having fallen through) with the media.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 16, 2016 18:32:49 GMT -5
Berg not getting TT will be moot if he is able to land a legitimate top six guy in the free agent market in July. If the offense looks mainly the same in the fall with the exception of Lehkonen and Reway battling for spots, then his new key message will have to be "it is difficult to make trades when you are far too risk averse". Well, if this other top 6 forward comes as a UFA with a massive contract that we regret for the second half of its length, or if it costs us other significant assets to acquire, this deal would've been preferable...
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 16, 2016 18:34:34 GMT -5
Ding ding ding. Berg likely knows Bickell all too well. The league and players haven't agreed upon the cap ceiling for next year yet. Bickell, even for a year, is a large commitment when you've got room for one or two pieces. If Montreal were in a rebuild, and had cap space to burn, that's the kind of deal you look to make. "I'll take your crap, but you're gonna pay me to do it." I don't think you should ever pass up a chance to get a good young player with TT's potential. Bickell is the price. You make up cap space somewhere else to cover the $4MM salary for a year and then you reap the rewards for the next 10 years. You have to take advantage of other GM's problems and if Terevainen turns into a good player, I'll be annoyed with Bergevin for not getting him. Our worst second rounder this year is better than the one Carolina gave up. Yup, pretty much my point of view as well. Bickell maybe goes to the AHL right off the bat, it's horrible for our cap, but if you consider it as part of Teravainen's cap, it's a worthwhile gamble. Teravainen for a 4.5 million cap hit ? I'd take that chance.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 16, 2016 18:53:32 GMT -5
Berg not getting TT will be moot if he is able to land a legitimate top six guy in the free agent market in July. If the offense looks mainly the same in the fall with the exception of Lehkonen and Reway battling for spots, then his new key message will have to be "it is difficult to make trades when you are far too risk averse". Well, if this other top 6 forward comes as a UFA with a massive contract that we regret for the second half of its length, or if it costs us other significant assets to acquire, this deal would've been preferable... Of all the UFAs this summer, Stamkos is likely the only one legitimately worth a max term deal. Okposo might get one because it would take him to around 35. I don't see Eriksson or Brouwer getting max term deals, and they're also the two I'd be targeting.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jun 16, 2016 19:25:00 GMT -5
I just hope they don't go cheap. As in spending 4.5 a yr on Parenteau. Either go all in and spend 9 on Stamkos or do nothing and save the cap space for the next big target.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Jun 16, 2016 20:05:42 GMT -5
Listening to the NHL network today and there was a sports writer from Chicago (dont know his name) but he said TT was not likely to crack the top 6 in Chicago and he is not suited for a bottom 6 player so he was deemed expendable. If that is what they think then the Habs don't need another smaller forward that ends up out of place on the 3rd line.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 16, 2016 20:43:39 GMT -5
The top 6 in Chicago are Toews, Kane, Hossa, Shaw, Panarin and Anisimov. That's a sight better than the Habs top 6. I dare say Terevainen could have broken into our top 6 right now and within a year I'd think he could probably break into the Hawks top 6. Most teams are going with a top 9 now from an offensive, possession standpoint. It sounds to me like the sportswriter from Chicago is making excuses for Bowman for having to deal with the CAP situation. I doubt very much they wanted to lose Terevainen. In any case, time will tell if they were wise or made a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 16, 2016 20:54:58 GMT -5
I just hope they don't go cheap. As in spending 4.5 a yr on Parenteau. Either go all in and spend 9 on Stamkos or do nothing and save the cap space for the next big target. I wouldn't compare Eriksson to Parenteau. Loui is a strong 2-way player who can score goals in a structured environment. A guy like Brouwer is your utility player. He'll score some goals, be physical, and responsible. It's not unrealistic to think the two could be had for a combined $10 million. You've added the goals. You've gotten more physical and harder to play against. Brouwer adds significant playoff experience too. You're older, but not old. You've got a balanced lineup. Stamkos gives you more offense from a single player, but he's a center. Pleks isn't going anywhere. Desharnais and Eller would have to go. And, I don't like paying Pleks $6 million to play on the third line for 2 years. Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Gallagher Eriksson-Plekanec-Brouwer Carr/Lehkonen-Eller-Andrighetto Danault/Flynn-Mitchell-Byron If you manage to pawn off Eller and Desharnais: Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Gallagher Lehkonen?-Stamkos-Andrighetto Carr/Reway-Plekanec-Byron Danault-Mitchell-Flynn Is that team good enough on the wing? Lots of question marks imo.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jun 16, 2016 21:11:00 GMT -5
Don't people say build with strength down the middle and a number 1 def?
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 16, 2016 21:17:46 GMT -5
Don't people say build with strength down the middle and a number 1 def? I believe we have our #1. With decent line mates, and a complete first line, Plekanec slides in right behind him as a decent #2 and a strong PK presence. Eller as #3 will drive possession like he does, win draws, and fore check hard. If the club decides to draft a kid like Keller, you've potentially got your replacement for Plekanec when his deal is up in 2 years.
|
|