Post-Game Talk: ITS OVER- Did we make a huge mistake on Pierre-Luc Dubois Thread?

[Harry Kakalovich]

I recounted several times on my fingers just to be sure before responding haha!

 

[JoelWarlord]

If the Habs have 2 picks in the top 17 there is a very good chance both players will be as good as Dubois.

I don't think so. Looking at the past ten drafts and the entire range of picks between 15-20 there's only really Mercer, Caufield, Vasilevskiy, and Larkin who are definitively better than Dubois, plus Guhle, Chychrun, Teravainen, Pulock, Wallstedt, Hertl, and Norris who you could argue are better/project to be better but aren't definitively. That's 11 guys out of 60 total picks in 10 years, and if you want to add a couple other names that I didn't mention, it doesn't really change the probabilities.

This is one of my biggest reasons for wanting to make this trade if the 17th pick is the biggest asset. We can ignore Vasievskiy as there's no goalie with that kind of pedigree in this draft, so in practical terms the risk is that we miss out on a Caufield, Mercer, or Larkin type of player which represents 3/60 of those picks in the past 10 years. In return for accepting that risk, we guarantee we're getting a player in the top 15 of those 60 selected picks, and completely eliminating the chance we pick one of the 30+ guys that turned into a bust or a mediocre depth player. That's extremely good value for us.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

I don't think so. Looking at the past ten drafts and the entire range of picks between 15-20 there's only really Mercer, Caufield, Vasilevskiy, and Larkin who are definitively better than Dubois, plus Guhle, Chychrun, Teravainen, Pulock, Wallstedt, Hertl, and Norris who you could argue are better but aren't definitively. That's 11 guys out of 60 total picks in 10 years, and if you want to add a couple other names that I didn't mention, it doesn't really change the probabilities.

This is one of my biggest reasons for wanting to make this trade if the 17th pick is the biggest asset. We can ignore Vasievskiy as there's no goalie with that kind of pedigree in this draft, so in practical terms the risk is that we miss out on a Caufield, Mercer, or Larkin type of player which represents 3/60 of those picks in the past 10 years. In return for accepting that risk, we guarantee we're getting a player in the top 15 of those 60 selected picks, and completely eliminating the chance we pick one of the 30+ guys that turned into a bust or a mediocre depth player. That's extremely good value for us.

But you are ignoring cap controlled years. Drafted players are valuable because you get to control their cost. Dubois has no cost-controlled years left, so he is just a UFA splash. There will likely be no value between what the Habs pay and what they get. In fact, usually for UFAs teams overpay because they get to control the timing of making a UFA splash. Habs are no good, and won't be probably for another 2-3 years. I don't see it being very good timing to make a splash.

 

[salbutera]

But you are ignoring cap controlled years. Drafted players are valuable because you get to control their cost. Dubois has no cost-controlled years left, so he is just a UFA splash. There will likely be no value between what the Habs pay and what they get. In fact, usually for UFAs teams overpay because they get to control the timing of making a UFA splash. Habs are no good, and won't be probably for another 2-3 years. I don't see it being very good timing to make a splash.

Who cares about cost controlled when the probability the pick develops into an actual NHLer is remote at best?

Acquiring PLD is not making a “splash”, it’s organic team building, don’t even know in 2-3 years is there’ll be a player of that caliber / age and size available, let alone willing to come to Mtl

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Who cares about cost controlled when the probability the pick develops into an actual
NHLer is remote at best?

Acquiring PLD is not making a “splash”, it’s organic team building, don’t even know in 2-3 years is there’ll be a player of that caliber / age and size available, let alone willing to come to Mtl

The salary cap cares.

 

[salbutera]

The salary cap cares.

If the player you draft doesn’t even make the NHL what help is that to the cap? As Julien Brisebois said when asked why he surrendered a 1st for a 4th liner like Jeanotte, “the chances are remote that pick even makes it to the NHL to play 1-game”

You don’t forgo talent because you’re scared to find ways to manage a cap. In 2-3 years the cap ceiling will be over $100M, acquire the talent, deal with managing the cap as you move forward

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

If the player you draft doesn’t even make the NHL what help is that to the cap? As Julien Brisebois said when asked why he surrendered a 1st for a 4th liner like Jeanotte, “the chances are remote that pick even makes it to the NHL to play 1-game”

You don’t forgo talent because you’re scared to find ways to manage a cap. In 2-3 years the cap ceiling will be over $100M, acquire the talent, deal with managing the cap as you move forward

Maybe the Habs should have outbid the Lightning for Jeanotte?

 

[salbutera]

Maybe the Habs should have outbid the Lightning for Jeanotte?

That’s not the Habs org weakness / need, but a big bodied 60-70pts top-6 C & W at 24-years of age, as a complement to the existing top-6, is a need for this org moving forward - the probability that assumed Fla 17OA pick will be as good as PLD is remote at best

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

That’s not the Habs org weakness / need, but a big bodied 60-70pts top-6 C & W at 24-years of age, as a complement to the existing top-6, is a need for this org moving forward - the probability that assumed Fla 17OA pick will be as good as PLD is remote at best

I guess the contract value of players doesn't matter.

 

[JoelWarlord]

But you are ignoring cap controlled years. Drafted players are valuable because you get to control their cost. Dubois has no cost-controlled years left, so he is just a UFA splash. There will likely be no value between what the Habs pay and what they get. In fact, usually for UFAs teams overpay because they get to control the timing of making a UFA splash.

For that to be a consideration the player has to develop first which is still a very uncertain thing even with a 17th overall pick. Cost controlled years have value but I'm not going to lose sleep over whether we might miss out on cost-controlled years for the next Liljegren or Fabbro with that pick, it only would be an "issue" if the player turns into an important piece which is possible but not likely.

I also don't think our long-term cap situation is much of a problem. Gallagher's on the road to LTIR, Anderson will be traded, and Matheson's the only other 24+ player signed for 3 more seasons. If we trade for Dubois and end up having a ton of prospects turn into great players that warrant big raises coming off their ELCs in 3-4 seasons from now that's a very good problem to have. It'll be manageable too with the incoming cap increases with inflation and the American TV deals, the HRR debt will be paid off by the end of next season at the earliest and we'd be looking at a 6-8M cap increase.

Habs are no good, and won't be probably for another 2-3 years. I don't see it being very good timing to make a splash.

I'd agree if we were talking about a typical 27/28 year old UFA, but again at his age I just don't have much concern about this. I don't see this as making a splash to support a core, it's adding a new piece to the core. We could view it as spending the pick to retroactively prevent Kotkaniemi or Poehling from busting for example, those guys are only 1/2 years younger than Dubois and would be making big money if they panned out with us.

 

[salbutera]

I guess the contract value of players doesn't matter.

Of course it does, but Habs have lots of cap $ schedule to free up this summer & next - with a pool of drafted prospects on ELC entering AHL next season, and other than Caufield no one else that is likely to ‘break the bank’.

The only concern should be what PLDs acquisition cost will be? I expect it’ll be a repeat of Trouba deal - Fla 1st + NHL ready player (Harris, Barron)

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Of course it does, but Habs have lots of cap $ schedule to free up this summer & next - with a pool of drafted prospects on ELC entering AHL next season, and other than Caufield no one else that is likely to ‘break the bank’.

The only concern should be what PLDs acquisition cost will be? I expect it’ll be a repeat of Trouba deal - Fla 1st + NHL ready player (Harris, Barron)

My concern is what is PLD's cap hit? I don't think his next contract will be of positive cap value. If you hit on your draft picks, you get LOTS of positive value cap years. So I think it is important to consider. Assuming the #17 pick will be a bust is sort of a strawman argument. #17 has a better chance than all but 16 picks to be a top asset for the Habs. And the player doesn't need to be as good as PLD either, because PLD will likely not provide any positive cap value on his next contract and it will probably be a negative cap value contract.

PLD's most productive years will be in the first 2 or 3 years of his next long-term deal (whether at 25 or 26 as UFA). It is doubtful the Habs will be relevant at that time. So it is essentially acquiring another player at negative cap value who is best suited playing elsewhere during his prime on a contender. To me, it is not the right direction to take right now.

Personally, if PLD was a UFA this year I would not want the Habs to sign him, assuming the cap hit will be the UFA market deal. It just doesn't fit the Habs timeline.

 

[Captain97]

My concern is what is PLD's cap hit? I don't think his next contract will be of positive cap value. If you hit on your draft picks, you get LOTS of positive value cap years. So I think it is important to consider. Assuming the #17 pick will be a bust is sort of a strawman argument. #17 has a better chance than all but 16 picks to be a top asset for the Habs. And the player doesn't need to be as good as PLD either, because PLD will likely not provide any positive cap value on his next contract and it will probably be a negative cap value contract.

PLD's most productive years will be in the first 2 or 3 years of his next long-term deal (whether at 25 or 26 as UFA). It is doubtful the Habs will be relevant at that time. So it is essentially acquiring another player at negative cap value who is best suited playing elsewhere during his prime on a contender. To me, it is not the right direction to take right now.

Personally, if PLD was a UFA this year I would not want the Habs to sign him, assuming the cap hit will be the UFA market deal. It just doesn't fit the Habs timeline.

Ah yes the dreaded players start to decline at 27 argument. 24 is too old of a player for our rebuild. Should we trade Suzuki too since his timeline is only one year behind PLD? And thus will likely only be productive for 1 year of our competitiveness?

 

[Redux91]

No. The whole point is that for the first time in forever we're in a situation that some other big market teams have enjoyed in the past. In fact, those who want PLD have explicitly brought up the Trouba example, because it's basically a carbon copy of what happened there. In the normal circumstances a player like Dubois would not have been available, or would require us to give up a crazy amount of assets. On the other hand, some people here agonize over late 1st round picks (as if we regularly draft players of PLD's caliber with those), so they might very well consider even that as an overpayment.

Mystery.Box.Syndrome.
C'est incroyable.

 

[Destopcorner]

My concern is what is PLD's cap hit? I don't think his next contract will be of positive cap value. If you hit on your draft picks, you get LOTS of positive value cap years. So I think it is important to consider. Assuming the #17 pick will be a bust is sort of a strawman argument. #17 has a better chance than all but 16 picks to be a top asset for the Habs. And the player doesn't need to be as good as PLD either, because PLD will likely not provide any positive cap value on his next contract and it will probably be a negative cap value contract.

PLD's most productive years will be in the first 2 or 3 years of his next long-term deal (whether at 25 or 26 as UFA). It is doubtful the Habs will be relevant at that time. So it is essentially acquiring another player at negative cap value who is best suited playing elsewhere during his prime on a contender. To me, it is not the right direction to take right now.

Personally, if PLD was a UFA this year I would not want the Habs to sign him, assuming the cap hit will be the UFA market deal. It just doesn't fit the Habs timeline.

So shall we trade Suzuki? If PLD doesnt fit our timeline, Suzy doesn't either. Plus do you have any idea how many prospects we already have in the pipeline plus the 11 picks coming this year? You talk about positive cap hit yet seem to forget the 50 contract limit which will make us loose many of your precious cap hit friendly no so good prospects.

 

[Redux91]

Yeah my bad, I got that mixed up with the age on a 7 year deal. Either way my point is just that I don't think the typical concerns about signing a veteran for 7-8 years apply in this case given usually that means someone who's already 29 when it starts, and I don't think we should really be worried than he'll be some cap anchor in 7 or 8 years when he'll only be 31 or 32.

And people complaining about THIS little wrinkle now freaks me out too lol

The DREAM is signing age 26 guys to 8 year deals, people would be surprised just how rare it is getting that perfect fit contract/prime wise (Suzuki signed til age 31 is such a boon its scary)

The NIGHTMARE is giving a 30 yr old Huberdeau 10.5M til 38 yrs old... which we thankfully avoided (and already has gotten off to a roaring start lol)

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Ah yes the dreaded players start to decline at 27 argument. 24 is too old of a player for our rebuild. Should we trade Suzuki too since his timeline is only one year behind PLD? And thus will likely only be productive for 1 year of our competitiveness?

So shall we trade Suzuki? If PLD doesnt fit our timeline, Suzy doesn't either. Plus do you have any idea how many prospects we already have in the pipeline plus the 11 picks coming this year? You talk about positive cap hit yet seem to forget the 50 contract limit which will make us loose many of your precious cap hit friendly no so good prospects.

I like Nick Suzuki, but his name was already on a list of top ten worst contracts last summer Tyler Seguin, Seth Jones and more: NHL's 10 worst contracts, 2022 edition

So I certainly wouldn't endorse clamouring to acquire and pay more players of that calibre.

And there's a reason teams worry about the salary cap way more than the 50 contract limit. They also worry more about waivers than the 50 contract limit.

But anyway - I don't want to change your minds. PLD is a good player. If you guys want the Habs to get him I can understand that opinion. I just don't think he's the right fit at the moment for the Habs. Take care!

 

[Redux91]

My concern is what is PLD's cap hit? I don't think his next contract will be of positive cap value. If you hit on your draft picks, you get LOTS of positive value cap years. So I think it is important to consider. Assuming the #17 pick will be a bust is sort of a strawman argument. #17 has a better chance than all but 16 picks to be a top asset for the Habs. And the player doesn't need to be as good as PLD either, because PLD will likely not provide any positive cap value on his next contract and it will probably be a negative cap value contract.

PLD's most productive years will be in the first 2 or 3 years of his next long-term deal (whether at 25 or 26 as UFA). It is doubtful the Habs will be relevant at that time. So it is essentially acquiring another player at negative cap value who is best suited playing elsewhere during his prime on a contender. To me, it is not the right direction to take right now.

Personally, if PLD was a UFA this year I would not want the Habs to sign him, assuming the cap hit will be the UFA market deal. It just doesn't fit the Habs timeline.

If this is how our GM(s) thought we'd be in sooo much trouble god
We have proactive people in charge now, smart guys
This would be a smart get, not a dumb one

 

[Captain97]

I like Nick Suzuki, but his name was already on a list of top ten worst contracts last summer Tyler Seguin, Seth Jones and more: NHL's 10 worst contracts, 2022 edition

So I certainly wouldn't endorse clamouring to acquire and pay more players of that calibre.

And there's a reason teams worry about the salary cap way more than the 50 contract limit. They also worry more about waivers than the 50 contract limit.

But anyway - I don't want to change your minds. PLD is a good player. If you guys want the Habs to get him I can understand that opinion. I just don't think he's the right fit at the moment for the Habs. Take care!

The Auhtor of that article literally said he thinks his model made a mistake with Suzuki and shows why it needs work...

Answer the question, should we trade Nicl Suzuki since he is too old for a rebuild?

 

[salbutera]

My concern is what is PLD's cap hit? I don't think his next contract will be of positive cap value. If you hit on your draft picks, you get LOTS of positive value cap years. So I think it is important to consider. Assuming the #17 pick will be a bust is sort of a strawman argument. #17 has a better chance than all but 16 picks to be a top asset for the Habs. And the player doesn't need to be as good as PLD either, because PLD will likely not provide any positive cap value on his next contract and it will probably be a negative cap value contract.

PLD's most productive years will be in the first 2 or 3 years of his next long-term deal (whether at 25 or 26 as UFA). It is doubtful the Habs will be relevant at that time. So it is essentially acquiring another player at negative cap value who is best suited playing elsewhere during his prime on a contender. To me, it is not the right direction to take right now.

Personally, if PLD was a UFA this year I would not want the Habs to sign him, assuming the cap hit will be the UFA market deal. It just doesn't fit the Habs timeline.

“IF”, how many mid / late teen picks have Habs “hit on” in the last 50-years? How about Gorton during his GM / AGM career?

Timmins at least hit on Guhle, Caufield…. otherwise Habs record since 1980 was pretty putrid … one other !! (Andrew Cassels in 1987 - who only blossomed once he left Habs)

Gorton may have one if Brayden Schneider continues to develop

One important factor, it’s a business not a fantasy league circle jerk for fanatics, there’s a reason Hughes said in a calculated manner the goal next year is to push for a playoff spot…. because that’s what the owners expect, not a 5-year rebuild program to satisfy fantasy leaguers but revenue generation in the immediate

Higher probability PLD will help push towards revenue generation vs an unknown hope of a mid 1st round pick

 

[WeThreeKings]

You guys are arguing with a guy who thought Kieran Ruscheinski was one of our best prospects.

 

[Hannibal]

You guys are arguing with a guy who thought Kieran Ruscheinski was one of our best prospects.

Who da f*** thought that? Jesus

 

[WeThreeKings]

Who da f*** thought that? Jesus

Harry K

 

[JoelWarlord]

And people complaining about THIS little wrinkle now freaks me out too lol

The DREAM is signing age 26 guys to 8 year deals, people would be surprised just how rare it is getting that perfect fit contract/prime wise (Suzuki signed til age 31 is such a boon its scary)

Yep. Not that you want to be thinking about this at the start of a contract either, but it also puts the team in a better position down the line where it's much easier in terms of fan pressure and such to move on from a guy when the deal expires at age 31-33 vs. a guy you sign off his ELC who expires at 28 or 29 where fans will rip the GM for letting the player go even if it's the right choice to pass on an 8 year deal.

Agree on Suzuki's deal as well, the value his long term deal provides is a big part of why I'm also so in favour of adding Dubois. I think people are strongly underrating the risk management aspects of this trade by focusing so closely on the $/WAR of the contract and the value of the assets we trade vs. Dubois himself (and the fretting about our 2024 draft position etc). There's a ton of value to long term certainty that isn't captured in a $/WAR calculation.

With Suzuki and Dubois in place, we would know that the worst case scenario is that we have Suzuki, Dubois, and Dach around as options to play C in the top 6, and gain the flexibility to run 3 strong lines in the playoffs. We get certainty at LW too as Dubois can fill that need if Slafkovsky doesn't pan out and/or if we don't develop another good top 6 LW. We'll never have to worry about adding size to the top 6, we'll be able to keep Dach with Suzuki and Caufield without sacrificing C depth. We could also aggressively target RD/wing/G upgrades without fretting about needing to fill the 2C slot, and it puts us in a much better position to capitalize on any unexpected prospect developments in the future as well.

 

[LaP]

You guys are arguing with a guy who thought Kieran Ruscheinski was one of our best prospects.

Wait that?