|
Post by GNick99 on Sept 20, 2020 6:27:08 GMT -5
No way TO trades Matthews. Way too many #34 jerseys in the stands and he's just about to enter his prime. I would take Matthews over Pieter any day so St. L would have to throw in more. Even then TO ain't parting with 34. It would send more shock waves than MB trading PK. Pietrangelo probably wanted close to Matthew's money... 11.5.... so the blues wont want Matthew's. Plus his contract structure would not be something the blues want... signing bonus for the next 4 seasons...15, 10, 7, 7 million... I heard he wants 9 on facebook. But?? Pietranngelo is not elite defenseman. At 30, 10 years in league not once did he get in top 3 of Norris. I say 9 is fair. If i
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 20, 2020 14:18:41 GMT -5
We need to add. We got to stop losing Radulovs to add Drouins. I’m not comparing the players here, simply we need to add to our top 6, not lose one to add one People say we only have two of the three pillars to build a roster. Well I agree, but I don’t think one of those pillars is trading, not unless we trade Carey Price. This off season, it’s essential to add through free agency. Which pillars are those, Skilly? Mine are strength up the centre (starting to happen), at least one elite defenseman and a scorer, regardless of position, but often a winger. I do not include goaltending since you hardly ever need an elite goaltender (though a hot, average one often wins the Cup). By that definition, we have none of the above, but are closing in on strength up the centre.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 20, 2020 14:20:09 GMT -5
Pietrangelo probably wanted close to Matthew's money... 11.5.... so the blues wont want Matthew's. Plus his contract structure would not be something the blues want... signing bonus for the next 4 seasons...15, 10, 7, 7 million... I heard he wants 9 on facebook. But?? Pietranngelo is not elite defenseman. At 30, 10 years in league not once did he get in top 3 of Norris. I say 9 is fair. If i That's my number too, Gnick. $9MM though I would not like to go too long a term with him. Five years preferably, but I could cave in on 6. Not 7.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 20, 2020 22:21:49 GMT -5
Comparative advantage, focus on what you do best. I understand your point regarding Price, GNick. But in reality the approach was Price-centric in his prime when he was the best in the business. It was Price-centric when Bergevin handed him a blank cheque at the negotiating table.
Price in his mid-30s is not going to guarantee the club deep playoff runs. The Habs need both goals and size up front.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 21, 2020 9:58:50 GMT -5
We need to add. We got to stop losing Radulovs to add Drouins. I’m not comparing the players here, simply we need to add to our top 6, not lose one to add one People say we only have two of the three pillars to build a roster. Well I agree, but I don’t think one of those pillars is trading, not unless we trade Carey Price. This off season, it’s essential to add through free agency. Which pillars are those, Skilly? Mine are strength up the centre (starting to happen), at least one elite defenseman and a scorer, regardless of position, but often a winger. I do not include goaltending since you hardly ever need an elite goaltender (though a hot, average one often wins the Cup). By that definition, we have none of the above, but are closing in on strength up the centre. I meant drafting, trades, and free agency. There has been talk on here that the Habs only have two of those options because no one sees MTL as a free agent destination. But I think it’s trading that screws us more because we never add to what we have, we simply remove one to add one ... This is the year we need to get a free agent and NOT lose a roster player
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 21, 2020 10:17:57 GMT -5
Ah, gotcha. The drafting, especially given that data about how many picks better than 100 we've had to use, has not been that bad. No difference makers unfortunately until perhaps recently with KK.
The trades, yeah. I have wanted for ages for the Habs to make the kind of deals we did with Patches. Trade a decent player who is aging (even if slowly) and get some young guys with the potential to be real difference makers. If you can't draft high with your own picks, try getting picks from teams that might end up high in the draft. Who would have thought the Sharks would end up as bad as they did last year? Get a pick that's 3 or 4 year away, from a currently good team, and anything can happen (cough, cough). Berg has gotten good marks for trading and has made a few where he's ahead. Some others are up in the air still and one for sure looks like it was a critical loss. The Suzuki one may turn into a clear win if Nick becomes elite at centre. Have to see.
Until those two factors are improved (especially the drafting since that's the one you can count on and can consistently funnel quality into your system) attracting UFA's is a pipe dream. I'm not that crazy about that route anyway. Most guys are already either just past their peak or approaching the downhill side. RFA's are more attractive to me, but you have to be selective. The Aho one still burns me big time.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Sept 21, 2020 12:15:49 GMT -5
Ah, gotcha. The drafting, especially given that data about how many picks better than 100 we've had to use, has not been that bad. No difference makers unfortunately until perhaps recently with KK. The trades, yeah. I have wanted for ages for the Habs to make the kind of deals we did with Patches. Trade a decent player who is aging (even if slowly) and get some young guys with the potential to be real difference makers. If you can't draft high with your own picks, try getting picks from teams that might end up high in the draft. Who would have thought the Sharks would end up as bad as they did last year? Get a pick that's 3 or 4 year away, from a currently good team, and anything can happen (cough, cough). Berg has gotten good marks for trading and has made a few where he's ahead. Some others are up in the air still and one for sure looks like it was a critical loss. The Suzuki one may turn into a clear win if Nick becomes elite at centre. Have to see. Until those two factors are improved (especially the drafting since that's the one you can count on and can consistently funnel quality into your system) attracting UFA's is a pipe dream. I'm not that crazy about that route anyway. Most guys are already either just past their peak or approaching the downhill side. RFA's are more attractive to me, but you have to be selective. The Aho one still burns me big time. Free Agents are like free money. You sign enough at the right price you can either trade what you currently have for new players or trade these players later on for additional picks and players. When you don't sign anoyone, all you have to fall back on is your picks and prospects.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 21, 2020 22:05:21 GMT -5
UFAs are very nice indeed if you get the right guy. The problem is most guys in high demand sign for between 5-8 years at serious money. So if management blows it with that type of term for the wrong guy or the guy about to fall off the cliff, the club is left in a whole lot of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 22, 2020 9:24:18 GMT -5
UFAs are very nice indeed if you get the right guy. The problem is most guys in high demand sign for between 5-8 years at serious money. So if management blows it with that type of term for the wrong guy or the guy about to fall off the cliff, the club is left in a whole lot of trouble. See Alzner, Karl.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Sept 22, 2020 11:01:22 GMT -5
Ah, gotcha. The drafting, especially given that data about how many picks better than 100 we've had to use, has not been that bad. No difference makers unfortunately until perhaps recently with KK. The trades, yeah. I have wanted for ages for the Habs to make the kind of deals we did with Patches. Trade a decent player who is aging (even if slowly) and get some young guys with the potential to be real difference makers. If you can't draft high with your own picks, try getting picks from teams that might end up high in the draft. Who would have thought the Sharks would end up as bad as they did last year? Get a pick that's 3 or 4 year away, from a currently good team, and anything can happen (cough, cough). Berg has gotten good marks for trading and has made a few where he's ahead. Some others are up in the air still and one for sure looks like it was a critical loss. The Suzuki one may turn into a clear win if Nick becomes elite at centre. Have to see. Until those two factors are improved (especially the drafting since that's the one you can count on and can consistently funnel quality into your system) attracting UFA's is a pipe dream. I'm not that crazy about that route anyway. Most guys are already either just past their peak or approaching the downhill side. RFA's are more attractive to me, but you have to be selective. The Aho one still burns me big time. Free Agents are like free money. You sign enough at the right price you can either trade what you currently have for new players or trade these players later on for additional picks and players. When you don't sign anoyone, all you have to fall back on is your picks and prospects. Real big problem with UFAs is that the real good ones you want to sign get to dictate not only the $$$ and the term, but also the NTC which is a killer if they don't work out.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Sept 22, 2020 11:02:40 GMT -5
UFAs are very nice indeed if you get the right guy. The problem is most guys in high demand sign for between 5-8 years at serious money. So if management blows it with that type of term for the wrong guy or the guy about to fall off the cliff, the club is left in a whole lot of trouble. See Alzner, Karl. No one agreed with that move. Everyone wanted Radulov and Markov to sign instead of Alzner.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Sept 22, 2020 11:04:24 GMT -5
I hope the brain trust is enjoying watching a 22 year old left handed Dman become a stud right in front of their eyes... all the while the guy we got for him has to be motivated by others... sigh... And to add insult to injury, had we not made that trade we would have had $5 million more in cap space each year since MB signed Drouin to a ridiculous contract. Drouin had showed nothing to deserve that amount and true to form he's done little to earn it since. And we will continue to pay that for another few years. I've heard of the hometown discount but MB flipped it on its head and provided a hometown bonus. But to be fair, I don't think one can assume Sergie would have been the player he is had MB kept Segie, MB and CJ would have ruined the kid by benching him or sending him to Laval for making a mistake on a shift And let's not forget Radulov who's having a great run with the Stars. And MB let walk for nothing. Sure wonder what will be going through MB's mind watching the Finals Like I was saying - watching these Finals is painful! awinninghabit.com/2020/09/21/montreal-canadiens-worst-marc-bergevin/
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Sept 22, 2020 12:10:12 GMT -5
Ugh. That article show how bad that was a brtual offseason.
"The Habs also lost Markov that summer as he signed in the KHL. Alexei Emelin was lost to the Vegas Golden Knights in the expansion draft. Nathan Beaulieu was traded to the Buffalo Sabres for a pick that would become Scott Walford.
Brought in to replace the entire group of left defencemen? David Schlemko, Mark Streit, Joe Morrow and Karl Alzner. Seriously. Bergevin thought in July of 2017 that this quartet added to Jordie Benn was an upgrade on Markov, Emelin, Sergachev and Beaulieu."
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 22, 2020 12:27:59 GMT -5
I foresee Bergevin being cautious with UFAs. There may be a reasonable deal to be struck. Even last summer, before the pandemic and the economic meltdown, there were some guys who did not get the kind of offers they were expecting.
In terms of age, position, and career numbers, Johansson and Nyquist are solid comparables for Tatar. Johansson got 2 year/$9 million and Nyquist got 4 years/$22 million. And that was when GMs around the league thought the cap was going up. Frankly, given what happened to the finances of the league, I think Tatar would be fortunate to get 4 years/$22 million.
And I do not anticipate 2020 wingers such as Dadanov and Toffoli will do much better. Hoffman will probably get $6 million per (or a shade under), but I doubt anyone gives him more than four years and it is entirely possible he will have to accept three.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2020 12:35:33 GMT -5
So, Dom Luszczyszyn actually did a statistical study on what makes up a Cup winner. From The Athletic Cup Checklist: Analyzing the rosters from the last decade of champions By Dom Luszczyszyn Sep 21, 2020 There’s no exact formula for winning the Stanley Cup. The Lightning have been a popular pick to win it all for years, but it took them five years since their last Stanley Cup Final berth to make it back. Few would have picked the Stars this season, especially with their starting goaltender injured, but they found a way and now they’re three wins away from being champions. Building a roster to win it all isn’t easy, and even building a good team often isn’t enough in a sport with as much chaotic energy as hockey. But there are lessons to be learned from past winners; guidelines for how a team’s roster should be made up. Stylistically they all differ, but from a total value perspective, there are similar elements that can be looked upon as goals for roster-building. The last two Cup winners were led by an elite centre worth roughly three wins, but there’s a big difference between the way Ryan O’Reilly and Nicklas Backstrom play, for example. An elite top line centre being a prerequisite to winning the Stanley Cup shouldn’t come as a huge surprise; it’s a talking point that’s been championed for a long time. Over the past decade only one team, the 2011 Bruins, won the Stanley Cup without a projected top line centre. David Krejci was just on the cusp and Patrice Bergeron hadn’t hit his full stride yet as one of the game’s best two-way players. However, both played at that level come playoff time. On average, the top centre on a Stanley Cup winning team is worth around 3.8 wins in the regular season; that’s by far the most important piece for a contender. But there’s more to the puzzle than just one player. This isn’t a new study by any means, it’s one I did for The Hockey News four years ago and one that Cam Lawrence – who works for the Florida Panthers – also did, but it’s worth diving into it again with more data. This time around, I’m armed with projected values for each player at the time of the playoffs to better assess their true talent level, plus a couple extra seasons of results. I’ll also be looking at each position on the depth chart, not just the core players, to give a better idea of where certain players should fit on a Cup-contending roster. It’s not just the average that matters, though. It would be foolish to treat 3.8 wins for a top line centre as a “you must be this tall to ride” measuring stick – it’s a range. No team is ever average or above relative to a Cup winner at every position on the roster and having a range of acceptable values helps illustrate where a player falls and how far off a team is. It’s even OK to be below average in a few areas. The key is to make up ground elsewhere and build a roster with as few concessions as possible. It should be noted as well that rather than averaging out by left and right wingers or defencemen, the best wingers or defencemen on a given line or pair were grouped together. While most Cup winners are predominantly stronger on the right side, that distinction probably doesn’t matter and this properly groups Alex Ovechkin with Patrick Kane and John Carlson with Duncan Keith, rather than with Brandon Saad and Michal Kempny, respectively. Here’s how the roster for a Stanley Cup winner looks, with an acceptable range of one standard deviation on either side. Based on the above chart, a team that fancies itself a contender is looking at the following checklist in terms of top of the lineup players. Elite first-line centre that’s among the very best players in the world. Elite first-line winger to support the elite centre. Two other top-line wingers on each of the top two lines. Top-line centre to play behind the elite centre. Two more top-six forwards for depth in the middle six. Elite No. 1 defenceman. A second No. 1 defenceman to play behind him. A top pairing defenceman to help anchor a strong second pair with the No. 2. Another top-pairing calibre defender to crush soft minutes on the third pair. A top 10 calibre starting goaltender. And that’s without mentioning two capable third-liners, another steady top four defenceman who can play on the top pair, and making sure no one on the fourth line or bottom pair is replacement level. It’s a tall order, especially making sure all the pieces fit together beyond numbers on a page. Chemistry matters. So while that’s a handy checklist under ideal circumstances, there’s no hard-and-fast rule. That’s where the ranges come in. A team can get away with not meeting the criteria in one area if they surpass it elsewhere and certain areas are more negotiable than others. Only the elite center (9/10), elite defenceman (officially 8/10, but one of the misses is because Keith had an off year), and top pairing defenceman on the second pair (9/10) were found on 80 percent of the champions. Every other archetype on the checklist was there six out of 10 times. A top 10 goalie would be great, but as long as he’s an above average starter it’s probably fine, especially with a strong defence in front of him. Having an elite winger on the top line is ideal, but a team can probably get away with someone that’s a shade below if they have strong depth in the middle six. There’s other lessons that can be gleaned from this too, and those are the areas that are probably not worth sweating over. Three areas come to mind: third-line center, top pair next to the star and the fourth line. Depth down the middle is crucial to building a Cup contender, but on average 86 percent of the value is confined to the top two centres. The past 10 Cup winners have been built off strong duos (O’Reilly/Schenn, Backstrom/Kuznetsov, Crosby/Malkin, Kopitar/Carter, Krejci/Bergeron). Meanwhile, only Tyler Bozak, Nick Bonino and Mike Richards were considered to be centres above third-line calibre. The same goes for the wingers. Only 14 out of 30 third-liners were top six calibre. There’s also the idea that a team’s cornerstone defenceman needs to play with another top pairing guy to maximize the top pair. But the beauty of most elite defencemen is they generally don’t need much help. We’re seeing that play out this year with Victor Hedman lugging around Zach Bogosian or Luke Schenn, but there’s some historical precedent to it. Sure there’s Keith with Brent Seabrook, but there’s also been Zdeno Chara with Dennis Seidenberg, Drew Doughty with Willie Mitchell, John Carlson with Michal Kempny and Alex Pietrangelo with Joel Edmundson. Good, steady players that coaches can trust in tough minutes – but they’re players that really aren’t that difficult to find. Lastly, the average fourth line for a Cup contender looks like … an average fourth line. There’s nothing special here aside from a few years of Matt Cullen being awesome. If there’s a place to cut corners on a roster it’s here, especially since teams can ramp up the ice time of the top six in the playoffs. But there’s an even more important reason the fourth lines don’t matter nearly as much here, and it’s because of the other part of this average Cup contender equation: how the players actually perform in the playoffs. That detail is often underreported on the analytics side when it comes to investigating a player’s total value, but it’s an important one – especially in comparison to how those players are projected to perform. When the average first-line Cup-winning centre is projected to be worth 3.8 wins, that’s under the expectation of playing against an average team under average circumstances. But the playoffs are not that. They’re a gruelling grind against increasingly difficult competition where matchups become even more important in a seven-game series. So top line centres on Cup winners don’t provide as much value as projected. In fact, they have the largest drop-off of any position on the depth chart, losing 0.9 wins of value. That’s a matter of goals being a lot harder to come by in the postseason and facing the toughest matchups night after night. The lessened offence means most of the forwards lose value on average (about 0.3 wins worth) with none being hit harder than the fourth line. The trio already carries little value to begin with, and loses another 1.8 on top of that, meaning in the playoffs they provide sub-replacement level value on average. Again, it’s the matchups taking over as there are fewer places to hide a fourth line. With the top line and fourth line losing lots of value, the middle six on a Cup-winning team generally does pick up the slack; that’s possibly where the idea that a strong third-line centre is crucial to a championship-calibre team comes in. They get the second largest bump among forwards, suggesting it’s not that a team necessarily needs a strong third-line centre, but they do need one that can elevate his game in the playoffs. Though the Bruins didn’t win last year, Charlie Coyle’s playoff excellence definitely comes to mind. As for the defence, they’re dead even with projections on aggregate, but the value distribution changes dramatically. Most third pairs are a little better, while those usually strong second pairs really struggle relative to expectations on Cup-winning teams. Perhaps that’s due to them being used more often as shutdown pairs, but it’s certainly an interesting trend. The top pair is where the biggest positive change comes from among a champion’s skaters. If you’re wondering why talking heads always wax poetic about the importance of having an elite No. 1 defender, it’s because of how they’ve generally elevated their game in the playoffs, becoming the most important skaters on the team when it matters most. On average, a team’s best defenceman has been 0.8 wins better in the playoffs, bringing their total value up to 3.3 wins on average (while top line centres drop to 2.9 wins). Pietrangelo, Carlson, Letang, Keith, Doughty, Chara all brought the heat in their Cup-winning seasons and unsurprisingly it’s Hedman and Miro Heiskanen putting in work to lead Tampa Bay and Dallas to the final. Those types of defenders are the key to a lengthy playoff run. But the most important player of all when it comes to the playoffs is, of course, the goalie, projected to be worth three wins, but earning closer to five on an average Cup winner. On average, goalies on Cup-winning teams are two wins better than projected. That says it all about building a Stanley Cup winning roster. A team can have the best group of skaters, but without a hot goalie, it’s tough to go very far. As Mike Tyson once said, “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” In hockey that equates to the minute something goes wrong in between the pipes, essentially rendering any Cup checklist moot. Goaltending is by far the most important piece to any Cup-winning team and it’s no surprise that both Andrei Vasilevskiy and Anton Khudobin have been very strong en route to their team’s respective final’s berth. The issue when it comes to goaltending is that it’s notoriously hockey’s most volatile position. That’s part of the chaos that’s bred in the postseason and it was only a year ago that Vasilevskiy was a big part of Tampa Bay’s demise, posting a grizzly .856 save percentage in the team’s four-game, first-round defeat. He’s turned the tables in these playoffs with a .931 save percentage and unsurprisingly, the team has followed. These aren’t a strict set of rules, but they can be seen as guidelines based on past Cup winners. Any team checking a majority of the boxes should be well on their way to contending and with a little postseason luck on their side might hoist the Stanley Cup.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2020 12:38:49 GMT -5
And to add insult to injury, had we not made that trade we would have had $5 million more in cap space each year since MB signed Drouin to a ridiculous contract. Drouin had showed nothing to deserve that amount and true to form he's done little to earn it since. And we will continue to pay that for another few years. I've heard of the hometown discount but MB flipped it on its head and provided a hometown bonus. But to be fair, I don't think one can assume Sergie would have been the player he is had MB kept Segie, MB and CJ would have ruined the kid by benching him or sending him to Laval for making a mistake on a shift And let's not forget Radulov who's having a great run with the Stars. And MB let walk for nothing. Sure wonder what will be going through MB's mind watching the Finals Like I was saying - watching these Finals is painful! awinninghabit.com/2020/09/21/montreal-canadiens-worst-marc-bergevin/Radulov has been a beast. Very hard to contain and he seems to be in on a LOT of Dallas' action. This is the 3rd year of his 5 year contract, and he seems to be aging reasonably well.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2020 12:43:56 GMT -5
I foresee Bergevin being cautious with UFAs. There may be a reasonable deal to be struck. Even last summer, before the pandemic and the economic meltdown, there were some guys who did not get the kind of offers they were expecting. In terms of age, position, and career numbers, Johansson and Nyquist are solid comparables for Tatar. Johansson got 2 year/$9 million and Nyquist got 4 years/$22 million. And that was when GMs around the league thought the cap was going up. Frankly, given what happened to the finances of the league, I think Tatar would be fortunate to get 4 years/$22 million. And I do not anticipate 2020 wingers such as Dadanov and Toffoli will do much better. Hoffman will probably get $6 million per (or a shade under), but I doubt anyone gives him more than four years and it is entirely possible he will have to accept three. No one is paying these middling guys what they hope to get. A dman like Pietrangelo will get his money and term because he's worth it. Even then, he is 30 years old, so a GM better be careful on term. Better to pay a bit more per year and stay at 5 years max. The Tatars and Danaults of the world are not going to get rich.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Sept 22, 2020 13:20:07 GMT -5
Tx for the Dom article 17.
Scary stuff as if one attempts to place asterisks * beside each of the requisites for the Habs to become a contender, I can only do that for 4 of the 10, maybe 5 and that's being generous. MB, or likely his successor, has some work to do. Although the arrival of Suze and KK may add checks to the first 2 on the list but still a ways to go.
Elite first-line centre that’s among the very best players in the world.
Elite first-line winger to support the elite centre.
Two other top-line wingers on each of the top two lines. (* perhaps Gally and maybe Tatar qualify as "top-line wingers")
Top-line centre to play behind the elite centre.
*Two more top-six forwards for depth in the middle six.
Elite No. 1 defenceman.
*A second No. 1 defenceman to play behind him.
*A top pairing defenceman to help anchor a strong second pair with the No. 2.
Another top-pairing calibre defender to crush soft minutes on the third pair.
*A top 10 calibre starting goaltender
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2020 14:55:12 GMT -5
An interesting comment in the article was that the defensemen who is paired with the elite guy isn't all that important. Because.....an elite defenseman doesn't need anyone else. They basically carry the first pair on their own. Doughty has done that for years and you can find many examples of the same thing. Duncan Keith is a good one. When Seabrook gets paired with someone else, he suddenly turns into a really bad contract. Anyway, the point is that we have been clamoring for the 'right' partner for Weber, when really what we need is a better defenseman than Weber for that top pairing. Shea would fit the complementary dman on the second pairing, as would Petry. Unfortunately for the Habs, an elite defenseman may be the rarest commodity in hockey.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 22, 2020 15:28:21 GMT -5
An interesting comment in the article was that the defensemen who is paired with the elite guy isn't all that important. Because.....an elite defenseman doesn't need anyone else. They basically carry the first pair on their own. Doughty has done that for years and you can find many examples of the same thing. Duncan Keith is a good one. When Seabrook gets paired with someone else, he suddenly turns into a really bad contract. Anyway, the point is that we have been clamoring for the 'right' partner for Weber, when really what we need is a better defenseman than Weber for that top pairing. Shea would fit the complementary dman on the second pairing, as would Petry. Unfortunately for the Habs, an elite defenseman may be the rarest commodity in hockey. Well, in that case our last guy who fit that profile was Markov - he made everyone around him seem better, whereas for both Subban and Weber, finding the right partner for a steady pairing has been a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 22, 2020 16:06:35 GMT -5
Unfortunately for the Habs, an elite defenseman may be the rarest commodity in hockey. No surprise that our contenders and champions had several in their primes....many in the same era. Unreal. Bouchard, Harvey, Tremblay, Laperriere, Savard, Lapointe, Robinson, Langway, Chelios, Desjardins, Markov....perhaps PK for a couple of seasons that included a Norris win. Apologies if I've missed any. Our contenders/champs were also deep in all pairings. Harper, Harris, Roberts, P. Bouchard, Chartraw, Nyrop, Lalor, Svoboda, Green, Odelein, Schneider, Gingras, Daigneault...to name a few. Selke, Pollock, Savard....elite architects.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 22, 2020 18:09:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the good read, seventeen. Montreal is missing pieces, no question about it.
I know that Bergevin does not believe in windows. But for me Montreal is likelier to contend when Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are 25 and 24 years old, respectively, than now when Weber and Price are 35 and 33 years old.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 22, 2020 18:26:33 GMT -5
Yeah. That point has been evident for a bit, which is why I thought it made a lot of sense to move Weber a couple of years ago. Get a prospect or pick that would have been mid twenties in a few years. Price, I'm not as quick to move. Primeau is my long term goalie, but he needs that consistent development, so holding on to Carey for 2 or 3 more years seemed fine to me. Goalies usually age better than skaters.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 22, 2020 19:13:57 GMT -5
I have come to accept that Price and Weber are not going anywhere. Those contract are not going to age well at all, but I suppose Bergevin is not going to worry about problems 4-6 years down the road. And on some level I guess it is rational to ignore the long-term downside since he will probably not be the GM four or six years from now unless the boys make a deep playoff run in 2020-21 or 2021-22.
But even if the plan is to keep Price and Weber, I do not really think it will be astute management to keep too many additional 30+ year old players on serious contracts (term and money) on the roster. If one accepts the premise that Montreal is likelier to contend when Suzuki and Kotkaniemi reach their primes, then the thrust of strategic planning should be focused on getting more guys currently in the sweet spot range (age 23-26) along with the development of home grown talent from the organizational prospect pool.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 23, 2020 8:21:48 GMT -5
I have come to accept that Price and Weber are not going anywhere. Those contract are not going to age well at all, but I suppose Bergevin is not going to worry about problems 4-6 years down the road. And on some level I guess it is rational to ignore the long-term downside since he will probably not be the GM four or six years from now unless the boys make a deep playoff run in 2020-21 or 2021-22. I'mm much more worried about Price than Weber, in that regard. In 2 seasons, Weber will be down to 3M, and 1M after that. I think the guy will seriously consider retirement, even if he could linger on as a 2nd or 3d pairing guy with leadership. Price though, could easily soldier on until 39 while being a platooning goalie who can still give elite performances in short spurts. Which would be fine if he weren't going to be making elite level money. Agreed. This can lead to a massive age gap though - if we were moving Domi for Dumba, for example, and getting a younger winger for Petry (to replace Tatar who we let go), this would leave us with no key players from 27 to 32, which is a pretty huge gap considering just about all NHLers run from 20 to 35. BTW: What I just stated there would be my plan if Petry and Tatar aren't signing reasonable, 3-4 year deals. Gallagher and Danault are harder to replace, though I'd consider letting them go for the same reason. We can't be signing all our UFAs to 5 and 6 year deals for big money...
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 23, 2020 10:53:03 GMT -5
Evans signs two year deal at $750,000 AAV (year one is two-way with him making $225K if he is in Laval, year two is straight NHL money). This is a club friendly contract. Obviously, Evans did not have any leverage as an RFA with 13 games in the NHL so there was probably no reason to delay getting his signature on a contract.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 23, 2020 12:54:39 GMT -5
I have come to accept that Price and Weber are not going anywhere. Those contract are not going to age well at all, but I suppose Bergevin is not going to worry about problems 4-6 years down the road. And on some level I guess it is rational to ignore the long-term downside since he will probably not be the GM four or six years from now unless the boys make a deep playoff run in 2020-21 or 2021-22. I'mm much more worried about Price than Weber, in that regard. In 2 seasons, Weber will be down to 3M, and 1M after that. I think the guy will seriously consider retirement, even if he could linger on as a 2nd or 3d pairing guy with leadership. Price though, could easily soldier on until 39 while being a platooning goalie who can still give elite performances in short spurts. Which would be fine if he weren't going to be making elite level money. I'm not so sure about Weber retiring simply because he's not making enough money. Athletes have a very difficult time deciding to retire. Their whole lives have revolved around the game, their teammates, the lifestyle, the routine and so on. If an athlete has other interests, IMO, they'd be more likely to retire sooner rather than later, especially when the money is factored in. I know very little about Weber. Is he married, children? Does he have other interests in his life? If the answer to those questions is no, then there's very little for him in life without hockey. Perhaps he may be offered a front office job and that would encourage him, but my guess is that he sticks it out as long as he feels he can play the game. He's too proud to fall behind and stick around, but even if he's a 3rd pairing guy and captain, that will keep him from retiring. And keep the Habs fighting an $8MM CAP issue for a player who could be replaced with a $1MM CAP hit. That has always been the risk since the trade.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 23, 2020 12:59:41 GMT -5
Thanks for the good read, seventeen. Montreal is missing pieces, no question about it. I know that Bergevin does not believe in windows. But for me Montreal is likelier to contend when Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are 25 and 24 years old, respectively, than now when Weber and Price are 35 and 33 years old. You are right. He doesn’t believe in windows. He believes in revolving doors!
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 23, 2020 13:05:42 GMT -5
I have come to accept that Price and Weber are not going anywhere. Those contract are not going to age well at all, but I suppose Bergevin is not going to worry about problems 4-6 years down the road. And on some level I guess it is rational to ignore the long-term downside since he will probably not be the GM four or six years from now unless the boys make a deep playoff run in 2020-21 or 2021-22. But even if the plan is to keep Price and Weber, I do not really think it will be astute management to keep too many additional 30+ year old players on serious contracts (term and money) on the roster. If one accepts the premise that Montreal is likelier to contend when Suzuki and Kotkaniemi reach their primes, then Etythe thrust of strategic planning should be focused on getting more guys currently in the sweet spot range (age 23-26) along with the development of home grown talent from the organizational prospect pool. Agree, BUT we are anointing KK and Suzuki long before they have turned in 90 point seasons. This is not the first time we are waiting for our first round picks to become first team all stars. Sophomore jinx, meddling fathers, alcohol abuse, disinterest and arrested development. We have seen it all before.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Sept 23, 2020 15:56:21 GMT -5
I think about it in terms of your top 11 players:
Top 6 forwards Top 4 dmen Goalie
Those are the guys who ultimately have to come through in the regular season and playoffs. Of course depth matters and you always want surprise contributions from players (like Lars Eller during the Caps Cup run), but the teams with the best 11 guys are usually the best teams.
Top 6: Gallagher, Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Tatar, Domi, Drouin Top 4: Weber, Petry, Chiarot, Edmundson G: Price
When you look at it in those terms you can see we have a lot of question marks. The top 6 forwards are a generally talented bunch but 2 will be UFAs after next season (Gallagher, Tatar), 2 are potential stars but still unproven (Suzuki, KK), and the other 2 are serious teases (Domi, Drouin). You can maybe throw Danault into the top 6 in terms of contribution, but he'll be UFA after next year too.
On the back end, you see the age of Weber and Petry and the dropoff after that.
Price is solid in net.
People are high on the Habs because guys like Suzuki and KK looked good in the bubble. And maybe they both turn into 80+ point guys, but I still see a roster with some huge questions and key contract decisions/replacements coming up. The potential pipeline looks interesting (Caufield, Romanov, Brook, Harris, Primeau) but we've been down that road before. You can't say there are any sure things in the pipeline.
|
|