Yup, pretty much.
To change the subject... imagine Scheifele's value in a sign/trade if they offer him at 50% for the last year of his deal? That would create quite the bidding war I would imagine. Teams get him for half the cap hit (around $3M) and then extend him at a time where the cap for 24/25 is much higher.
Chevy could get a massive haul if they decide to rebuild. I think Scheifele could return way more than Dubois cause I do think Scheifele would be open to extensions with the Avs, Bruins, and Canes.
$7.75M - $8.5M is my range. I'd give zero signing bonus money if he wants $8.5M like Horvat. I would give over 50% of the contract as signing bonus money if he took $7.75M - $8M range.
I do think Dubois is just as good as Larkin, Hintz, Horvat though and we need to be careful with evaluating him on points only. Points come and go depending on who you play with but all of these centers are legit top 2C who do things very well beyond points.
Dubois was close to pt/game with Connor on his line and is more like 0.7 pts/game without someone like Connor on his line. I think we can say the same with Suzuki (with and without Caufield).
I like Dach with Suzuki/Caufield but I also like Suzuki/Caufield and Dubois/Dach as well. Options are a great thing so yeah, lets get Dubois cause I really do think he wants to join this core and fit with our cap management strategy
If we get Bedard, put Dach with Suzuki/Caufield and Bedard with Dubois and Slaf (or Roy)
$7.75M - $8.5M is my range. I'd give zero signing bonus money if he wants $8.5M like Horvat. I would give over 50% of the contract as signing bonus money if he took $7.75M - $8M range.
Two things about this post. While I think we agree most of the time, why are you even considering what you would do with bonus money, or front-loading, or anything else contract-wise? It's not your money and you are not the GM or owner of the team.
Why wouldn't Montreal try to give as much of a front-load and as much of bonus money (like it did for price with 85% in bonus money throughout the contract) as possible to get the Cap AAV down, provide comparable fiscal advantages to the vast majority of tax haven US destinations, all great reasons to sign in Montreal and great ways to keep the cap number down long term?
Honestly, doing as much would represent a future dollars earning (by the end of the contract) of around 8.5M if the Cap AAV is 8M, or a little over 8.25M if the Cap AAV is 7.75M.
Without going all out, both on bonus money and front-loading, as you suggest, like you're being nice to Dubois if he's nice to the team, doesn't really move the needle all that much in terms of future dollar earnings by the end of the contract.
Go crazy with Molson's money, Habs Halifax. Why hold back, because, then, it only looks like a gesture and not much more?
I like Dach with Suzuki/Caufield but I also like Suzuki/Caufield and Dubois/Dach as well. Options are a great thing so yeah, lets get Dubois cause I really do think he wants to join this core and fit with our cap management strategy.
I like Dubois with Dach, for the same reasons I like Dach with Suzuki and the reason a Dach on the wing can help a talented offensive pivot on that line become a PPG producer, or closer to it, anyhow.
Dach, as a natural C, can back check and play the pivot's defensive role when the puck is turned over. That he does this well is even a bigger bonus. It allows the line's pivot to pinch deeper in the O-zone and take more risks trying to create offense.
When that's not the advantage from having Dach on your line, it is that the former CHI pivot can carry the puck into the O-zone with ease and control the puck well by protecting it from opposing players. The line's pivot can lose himself on the ice, attention focused on Dach, and prepare his next move.
However, Dubois' line would then also need a sniper like Caufield to be most effective.
Suzuki and Dubois are both dual threat pivots, able to score or set up plays. That works really well with a sniper on one wing and a puck possession beast who can pass the puck on the other wing.
There are always two targets on the ice as shooters for the playmaking winger to keep opposing Ds guessing and honest and, thereby, to open up the ice for plays to happen. When the Center has the puck, the G can't rush his move cross crease to block the winger's shot because the C would end up with a gaping hole of his own to fill the net.
With Caufield, Suzuki, Dach and Dubois, we have two thirds of a deadly top-6. Who can be the missing puck possession beast that can also pass the puck and who can be the other sniper to exploit the playmaking winger and the dual threat pivot's skill sets?
IMO, trading for Dubois leaves two question marks to be answered up front, and, then, when we have an offensive, PMD on the back end, to go with Gule, Matheson, Xhekaj and, possibly Mailloux as a talented and imposing back end, plus a good #1G (no need for a franchise G) to go with Mount Mabo as a decent back-up, we will be a contender again.
That's FOUR missing pieces and a few years of development after we add Dubois.
He is not a SAVIOUR, but adding Dubois makes the rebuild plan clear and more concise, for me.
We may already have some answers within the system and still have a good draft pick in 2023 to perhaps fill one hole.
Roy, with his play along the boards, his high hockey IQ and his playmaking skills, could be a missing puck possession beast that can make plays with the puck. IMO, if he pans out in that role, he'd also be an added threat because he would be a second dual threat player that can also score the puck.
If not, Farrell could also grow into a playmaking winger for the top-6, but he lacks the size and the puck possession skills along the boards. He'd need to be on a a line with Dubois on the wing and Suzuki at C, rather, and I'm not sure that is optimal.
Farrell could/should rather be a top-9 winger on a third line, because he is a capable two-way player with defensive acumen, on top of offensive instincts.
Can the 2023 draft pick become the missing sniper for the top-6, or that puck possession beast that complements one of the top-6 lines instead?
There is also always Slafkovsky to consider. At this juncture, I'm already convinced he can be a playmaking winger from some of the savvy passes I have seen him make as a rookie. The puck possession beast angle is less confirmed at this point, but he definitely has the physical tools to become that as he gains in experience and confidence.
In Roy, Slafkovsky or the 2023 draft pick, I'm pretty sure that we fill one of the two question marks up front. If we're lucky, one of Roy and Slafkovsky can become the puck possession beast and playmaker on the wing and the 2023 draft pick can become the other sniper (Michkov, maybe)?
On D, can Hutson be that offensive dynamo, PMD we lack? We're a couple of years away from testing that theory at the NHL level, I think, but all hopes are on this one to pan out and take our D to another level!
The missing #1G is more complicated, but there is time to try and develop one (two or three years) before the rest of the pieces in the puzzle have matured to the point where they will start to have a genuine impact on the game.
If we can trade for a G closer to fitting that role in the NHL (Askarov or other), there is a possibility (with Hutson panning out), that we would be one missing UFA sniper away from being genuine perennial contenders again, with a roster young enough to play the long game as possible winners.
We might, after the 2023 draft, already have the two missing forwards in the system and turn to the Free Agent market for a puck-moving RHD between 27 and 29 years of age as we become ready for a long playoff run. That RHD then would be 24, 25 or 26 now.
With ELCs still in full force for some, and possible bridge contracts as 2nd NHL deals, the opportunity to keep the core of players together is also a distinct possibility as the Cap ceiling continues to rise.
Landing Dubois is one piece of a longer puzzle, but there is hope that other pieces, already in the system, will fall into place.
For the third and fourth lines, I am not remotely concerned, given the depth of prospects for bottom six roles (if not elite bottom six roles) already in the system.
The D appears set for me, at least in the medium term with Guhle, Matheson, Xhekaj and Barron as a foundation for the top-6. I expect one of Mailloux or Hutson to pan out (of course, both, would be a Godsend).
The D corps is much closer to being settled than one would think, I believe.
The G position, an all time gem and cinch for the Habs, may become a bigger bane than we are used to seeing?
