HF Habs: 2020 Montreal Canadiens Off-Season Thread part 3

[Adam Michaels]

Updated the OP with the Jake Evans extension:

 

[Habs Halifax]

We don't really what would have cost ROR but we know that Buffalo was asking for 1st pick 2018 + Poehling + Danault and I think we would have trade Pacioretty even with ROR. This being said for the fun of the exercice a line of Pacioretty - O'Reilly - Tkachuk would have been by far the best line I would have seen in a Habs uniforme ( I follow the Habs since 2004)

I might have got that timing off cause Patch was being shopped that summer too. I though ROR trade talk was the season before that. Imagine though... Radulov, Patch, ROR, Tkachuk.

 

[Habs Icing]

Still don't agree with Armia. Unless of injuries , Armia should be out of the top 6 of any teams.

He's the perfect (or near perfect) third line player.

I'm bored. Bergevin got me accustomed to this playoffs trades lifestyle and now I'm starved for more.

Be careful what you wish for.

I find MB dropped the ball in maximizing the return on Byron but can anybody explain to me why people want to dump ti Paul at all costs all of a sudden? The dude is good enough depth and seems to be back to his old self. Byron brings more to a team in 2020 than a washed up Kovy.

I agree he brings more than Kovy but I think many want to move him because they want to replace him with grit and size.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

I agree he brings more than Kovy but I think many want to move him because they want to replace him with grit and size.

I can understand the logic behind that but let's not underestimate that Byron scores and creates his own offensive opportunities regardless of where he plays, kind of like Grabner. Given our lack of scoring options, I don't think it'd be wise to favor size and grit (which Byron has) for a guy like Wayne Simmonds even if the latter is signed for less than 1.25M.

 

[OB5]

Be careful what you wish for.

Hey we got Evans!

 

[Habs Icing]

Do you guys think the Habs would go with a 22 man roster instead of 23 ?
Leaf fans are talking they would go down to a 20 man roster, no way I could see that, but 22 could happen and save $$$ that way.

If the league is starting late dec/ early jan and still play 82 games, I can see the roster being increased to 24-25 players.

 

[BLONG7]

If the league is starting late dec/ early jan and still play 82 games, I can see the roster being increased to 24-25 players.

Could be, but what would that do to the cap? There are teams with huge cap issues, and putting 21-22 guys out there, will be a big challenge.

 

[Habs Icing]

Could be, but what would that do to the cap? There are teams with huge cap issues, and putting 21-22 guys out there, will be a big challenge.

The league could steal a rule from soceer and teams can designate one or two players as exempt from the cap.

 

[BLONG7]

The league could steal a rule from soceer and teams can designate one or two players as exempt from the cap.

Sounds good, but gotta think there would be teams who abuse this? Cap teams?
But in theory, this would work, with league restrictions.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Bergevin needs to get Laine if he is indeed available.

Can you imagine having Laine on the 1st line and Caufield on the 2nd line for the foreseeable future?

Our PP would be fearsome!!

If Caufield pans out in the NHL level we could be looking at potential 40+ goal scorers on both our top 2 lines!?

Make it happen Bergevin!

 

[le_sean]

The league could steal a rule from soceer and teams can designate one or two players as exempt from the cap.

I would say 50% cap hit rather then the entire cap hit. Because if not, you're going to have the Leafs and Rangers abusing it by giving a player $15m per season and we are almost back to where we started.

You can also attach a caveat that players whose cap hit you hide cannot be bought out the following summer.

 

[Kwikwi]

 

[calder candidate]

I can understand the logic behind that but let's not underestimate that Byron scores and creates his own offensive opportunities regardless of where he plays, kind of like Grabner. Given our lack of scoring options, I don't think it'd be wise to favor size and grit (which Byron has) for a guy like Wayne Simmonds even if the latter is signed for less than 1.25M.

He create is own offense but he isn’t a offensive dynamo or a top6... He doesn’t bring anything that other players can’t bring and there long stretches this pass season where he wasn’t doing anything he didn’t even seem to have speed... I agree that a bigger player might not be better but he if he isn’t doing much he still has size, he would bring something that we don’t have and could better compliment / help player that have even more offensive potential.

 

[calder candidate]

I would say 50% cap hit rather then the entire cap hit. Because if not, you're going to have the Leafs and Rangers abusing it by giving a player $15m per season and we are almost back to where we started.

You can also attach a caveat that players whose cap hit you hide cannot be bought out the following summer.

It would be easy to have a system like MLS or NFL where you have a designed or franchise tag where you have a max cap hit ~12m$or x% of the cap. So even if you pay him 18M$ the cap hit would be 12M$ and you could also have a type of luxury taxes for the extra money that isn’t on the cap so that big market team don’t exaggerate.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

If the league is starting late dec/ early jan and still play 82 games, I can see the roster being increased to 24-25 players.

Could be, but what would that do to the cap? There are teams with huge cap issues, and putting 21-22 guys out there, will be a big challenge.

The league could steal a rule from soceer and teams can designate one or two players as exempt from the cap.

It would be easy to have a system like MLS or NFL where you have a designed or franchise tag where you have a max cap hit ~12m$or x% of the cap. So even if you pay him 18M$ the cap hit would be 12M$ and you could also have a type of luxury taxes for the extra money that isn’t on the cap so that big market team don’t exaggerate.

IMO, all those options are off the table, or else they would've signed off on it a few months ago when they sealed both the RTP plan and CBA.

Everything will be done through CBA mechanisms, so this means high escrow rates and team revenue sharing. Odds are teams are being cautioned on spending, but assured revenue sharing mechanisms will keep things afloat. The league has big coffers and has always given huge support to franchises in financial difficulties, foremost in the Bettman era, even going as far as acting as temporary financial custodian of the Arizona team.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Sounds good, but gotta think there would be teams who abuse this? Cap teams?
But in theory, this would work, with league restrictions.

Big tax markets like the Leafs and Habs are at a disadvantage to some degree. There is no way either of the Leafs and Habs would be able to get the players the Lightning have on those contracts! Reality. This 1 or 2 contract exempt from the cap seems to be a good idea but how do you make escrow work to balance out the 50/50 revenue split? No way Bettman would be open to that IMO.

 

[HABitual Fan]

I would say 50% cap hit rather then the entire cap hit. Because if not, you're going to have the Leafs and Rangers abusing it by giving a player $15m per season and we are almost back to where we started.

You can also attach a caveat that players whose cap hit you hide cannot be bought out the following summer.

Not so hard, you allow only a 1m max cap hit for the extra players with a provision that you are already icing a 23 man roster to be able to use this rule.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Not so hard, you allow only a 1m max cap hit for the extra players with a provision that you are already icing a 23 man roster to be able to use this rule.

This would unbalance revenu sharing between players and owners, unless they once again further the escrow rates.

 

[Adam Michaels]

 

[calder candidate]

Big tax markets like the Leafs and Habs are at a disadvantage to some degree. There is no way either of the Leafs and Habs would be able to get the players the Lightning have on those contracts! Reality. This 1 or 2 contract exempt from the cap seems to be a good idea but how do you make escrow work to balance out the 50/50 revenue split? No way Bettman would be open to that IMO.

The easiest would be to adjust the cap based on taxe jurisdiction you have a 82M$ Avg. with some team being higher and some lower or you have 82M$ and some team are able to go over by a specific amount to account for there for taxes... That way the take home money for a player would be the same regardless where you played and it would be a issues, having the same cap when their such disparity in taxes never made any sens to me... with division and schedule being set it is very easy to calculate each team %.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The easiest would be to adjust the cap based on taxe jurisdiction you have a 82M$ Avg. with some team being higher and some lower or you have 82M$ and some team are able to go over by a specific amount to account for there for taxes... That way the take home money for a player would be the same regardless where you played and it would be a issues, having the same cap when their such disparity in taxes never made any sens to me... with division and schedule being set it is very easy to calculate each team %.

I was surprised they didn't try to address this in the last CBA. Bettman must be against it. Might be more complicated to sort out vs the Escrow

 

[EdAVSfan]

The easiest would be to adjust the cap based on taxe jurisdiction you have a 82M$ Avg. with some team being higher and some lower or you have 82M$ and some team are able to go over by a specific amount to account for there for taxes... That way the take home money for a player would be the same regardless where you played and it would be a issues, having the same cap when their such disparity in taxes never made any sens to me... with division and schedule being set it is very easy to calculate each team %.

No offense, but this type of mentality isn’t based on logic.

you can’t simply pick one item that causes a dis-balance and fix it. You can’t address the tax situation and then completely ignore other factors that create issues among the teams.

maybe they should address tax issues. Maybe they should also then allow a max for team spending. That way teams like Montreal and Toronto have to account the amount of money they spend on coaching, and staff that far exceeds other markets.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Updated the OP with the Laval Rocket AHL deal for Brent Gates:

 

[Kriss E]

Big tax markets like the Leafs and Habs are at a disadvantage to some degree. There is no way either of the Leafs and Habs would be able to get the players the Lightning have on those contracts! Reality. This 1 or 2 contract exempt from the cap seems to be a good idea but how do you make escrow work to balance out the 50/50 revenue split? No way Bettman would be open to that IMO.

That's BS. You just need to breed them from within or really like it here. Markov took a discount back in the days, Petry could have also cashed more on free agency but signed a very fair deal. It's very doable, especially when you have an owner with very deep pockets who happily will spare no expenses on benefits.
Of course when you have a team who's best center is Plekanec or Danault, it makes things way harder.

 

[Habs Halifax]

That's BS. You just need to breed them from within or really like it here. Markov took a discount back in the days, Petry could have also cashed more on free agency but signed a very fair deal. It's very doable, especially when you have an owner with very deep pockets who happily will spare no expenses on benefits.
Of course when you have a team who's best center is Plekanec or Danault, it makes things way harder.

It's not BS. Leafs breed their talent and they had to pay them while the Lightning also breed their talent and have very good AAV's. We had to pay Price and Subban way more than others with less taxes would have.

Also, it's not linear either. Building a culture of winning also helps like you said but it's deeper than your 2d approach. You prefer to throw the organization under the bus more often than not.