- Jan 18, 2022
- 9,334
- 13,925
Because people didn't learn their lesson with Armia the first timeWhy in the hell would we want to tie up 20M on a role player?
Because people didn't learn their lesson with Armia the first timeWhy in the hell would we want to tie up 20M on a role player?
He’s been consistent for the last year and a half. I’m ok with that. The team itself has been inconsistent before thenArmia has been inconsistent his entire tenure with us. Evans has been a workhorse day in and day out. We have seen Evans without Armia because Armia takes days off.
It can't be both. He can't be an unimpactful interchangeable 4th line center and ALSO "deserve his bag".There's no upside in this deal. He's a great guy but also a 4th line center. People may think good 4th line centers are secret Swiss knives and keys for well-balanced team but in reality they are the easiest to replace. Give his place to a journeyman or a young prospect in the pipeline.
He has deserved his bag and will get it somewhere. But these are the type of free agency deals that sour very soon.
Every team needs some experienced role players, but 5 x $4.0M is too much even for a center.My argument from the get go. We already have two players ready to replace Evans in Beck and Kapanen.
People are freaked out we won't be able to replace his PK when in reality it's one of the easiest roles to replace. I don't get the fear mongering crowd who think we will far apart. I've also ascertained that our good PK coincided with Armia's uptick in play not Jake Evans.
Why in the hell would we want to tie up 20M on a role player?
He can be a great 4th line center and too expensive to keep with free agency money. And I never said he has no impact. I'm not sure if you understand how free agency works but it is a market where every NHL team participates. And many times they make deals that are far too rich while trying to outbid each other. Evans will receive his bag at the free agency and he deserves his payday. But it may not be a great thing for the team that signed it.It can't be both. He can't be an unimpactful interchangeable 4th line center and ALSO "deserve his bag".
I said under 30 years old. Duchene didn't came to mtl last time even with more $ offered. Nelson is not coming in Canada.
Down and Pius Suter will cost you as much as Evans on the open market.
Gourde is 5ft8, do we really want another small player?
I guess we could go for Faksa but what if doesn't want to sign with us? We go with Condotta?
Suzuki
Dach
Beck
Condotta
It will take time before he can take those defensive responsibilities, he won’t be able to take those minutes right awayI've seen enough of Beck to know he wont take two years to fill his shoes so trade.
Right away no but wont take the 5 years Evans wants.It will take time before he can take those defensive responsibilities, he won’t be able to take those minutes right away
It's good justification to create hope he might sign here.That would be terrible
I do think we have a chance with Duchene though. Last time, he always wanted to live in Nashville so that’s why he signed there but he did consider Montreal and we where his favorited team growing up
Beck doesn't project as a top 6 player so HE IS Evans replacement (him or Kapanen). If Beck becomes a 2nd liner it will be a bonus but it should not be counted on. As for the 4th line center role i'D rather have someone more physical hopefully Xhekaj i a few years.The thing is Beck should not be the Evans replacement. If they decide trading Evans they need to have a plan in place to replace him that isn't forcing beck into a shutdown role. I want Beck to have his shooting and offensive play encouraged
I think that Bennet would at least be effective as a 2C through the first four years of his next contract; 29, 30, 31 and 32 years old, maybe throughout the entire contract, but let's be less convinced.Yes but what I’m saying is, let’s say they get this guy in the offseason. The Habs window maybe opens in 2 years. Now this guy is 31 just when they start making the playoffs. Is he still effective? What about the following year? The year after?
5 years no I agreeRight away no but wont take the 5 years Evans wants.
The only real importance in having a PK role C, IMO, is taking those minutes away from Suzuki. We've seen, in the past, how playing crazy minutes with all the PK assignments on top of the PP assignments and extra minutes at even strength as a 1st line C have overtaxed Suzuki.My argument from the get go. We already have two players ready to replace Evans in Beck and Kapanen.
People are freaked out we won't be able to replace his PK when in reality it's one of the easiest roles to replace. I don't get the fear mongering crowd who think we will far apart. I've also ascertained that our good PK coincided with Armia's uptick in play not Jake Evans.
Why in the hell would we want to tie up 20M on a role player?
Beck does have 2nd line upside, depending on the identity of your second line. I see Beck as a Danault- type, shutdown C that is good in the dot, but with slightly higher offensive upside than Danault, even.Beck doesn't project as a top 6 player so HE IS Evans replacement (him or Kapanen). If Beck becomes a 2nd liner it will be a bonus but it should not be counted on. As for the 4th line center role i'D rather have someone more physical hopefully Xhekaj i a few years.
It's not like he will suck for 3 years though. He wont be as effective as Evans defensively but the progression will be a curve in those 2-3 years. It's not like we are ready yet. I'd rather Beck get NHL exp starting next season he's not the kind of guy who stay in the AHL for 3+ years.5 years no I agree
But it could take 2-3 years if he ever attempt that level
Of course not, he will progress with years in the NHLIt's not like he will suck for 3 years though. He wont be as effective as Evans defensively but the progression will be a curve in those 2-3 years. It's not like we are ready yet. I'd rather Beck get NHL exp starting next season he's not the kind of guy who stay in the AHL for 3+ years.
5 years in the 4.3-4.6 range is high as a range and term, of course. That salary structure you speak of should also be used to drag the salary demand down to 3.75M from the rumoured 4M, IMO.If we offer a contract it needs to be structured in a way that he can be moved in 2 or 3 yrs when a youngster is ready to take his place. Something like 5 yrs in the 4.3- 4.6 range in avg. salary but loaded some what in the first 2/3 yrs. Something a team would trade for when it is time to move him.
Agree that Beck needs to at least have a 3rd line role next year. Again, I would bolster that line by adding Heinemann and Laine as his wingers. This threesome would have complementary skills and could be very productive facing the bottom half of the opponents' depth charts.Of course not, he will progress with years in the NHL
You're still double talking. You can't "deserve" your salary if it's too much for what you bring.He can be a great 4th line center and too expensive to keep with free agency money. And I never said he has no impact. I'm not sure if you understand how free agency works but it is a market where every NHL team participates. And many times they make deals that are far too rich while trying to outbid each other. Evans will receive his bag at the free agency and he deserves his payday. But it may not be a great thing for the team that signed it.
Now it's simply nitpicking about semantics. This has very little to do with Evans.You're still double talking. You can't "deserve" your salary if it's too much for what you bring.
I said it before and I'll say it a again. He is new Lars Eller and is asking for the current version of Lars Eller money. Its probably fair. Maybe we do some deffered salary + bonus combo shenanigans to get the cap hit lower.