True. Although to make this whole exercise worth it, we need to be picking in the top-10.
Monahan dilemma, to sign or not to sign?
- Thread starter Belial
- Start date
Grate n Colorful Oz
The Hutson Hawk
Completely assinine extrapolation based on fantasy and your own lack of understanding on how Hughes would actually deal with it.
Monahan got traded to last year's worst team, do you really think he isn't expecting getting traded? Do you really think Hughes would handle this as idiotically as you portrayed it?
We get it, you're in love with Monahan and have lost your bearings on reality, completely consumed by your own bias.
I am quite objective on Monahan. I appreciate the player, he is what we wanted Dvorak to be, AND MORE.
I'm aware we are in a rebuild, and while I think he can contribute to it, it has to be on cap friendly terms.
2 years $10.5M = 5.25
3 years $14.0M = 4.67
4 years $17.0M = 4.25
5 years $19.5M = 3.90
I am not one of the guys saying long-term at big money.
And if we re-sign him, we trade Dvorak.
HabsQC
Registered User
Trade him for at least a first and then laugh for many years while watching the "future considerations" trade tree
Luigi Habs
Captain Saku
28 years old is not old. He is still young. He still has 5 years of good hockey if he can stay healthy which is the biggest question.
abo9
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2017
- 9,153
- 7,274
There shouldnt be a debate... the whole upside of getting Monahan was to flip him if he did well
He's doing well, best case scenario is happening. Trade him to a contender whi needs 2C help, maybe like Colorado
He's doing well, best case scenario is happening. Trade him to a contender whi needs 2C help, maybe like Colorado
MasterD
Giggidy Giggidy Goo
- Jul 1, 2004
- 5,948
- 5,416
And we’re rebuilding.
Sure but to get there you need to draft high end talent. The worst thing we can do it sign a good 2nd C like Monahan and finish 9th in the east like we’ve done for 30 years
ClasslessGuy
Registered User
Am I the only one that don’t have a problem trading him? If it helps the rebuild, trade him
26Mats
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2018
- 33,364
- 25,755
He'll be 29 when he starts his new contract.
No one knows when his decline will start. Could be 34. Could be 31. No one knows. And No one knows how long he'll be healthy.
HostileCapSpace
Registered User
Naslundforever
43-67-110
- Aug 21, 2015
- 4,218
- 5,025
None of us seem to actually (and 80% would rather trade him). The camps are more along the line of « he’s a positive asset moving forward with the rebuild, at least as a gap to current draftees » or « a rebuild has to be a specific alignmentment of specific assets in time, and must be optimized both in suck and in timed, planned awesomeness »
I understand the concept of « sell high buy low », and « windows of opportunity » but you need to start icing teams that show progression at some point + the team needs positive, skilled mentors to help the kids.. Habs won’t be any better off without a single good vet next year and I don’t believe you can only « plan » success at hockey, you have to roll with the situations too.
I prefer to keep him. Why ? He is the only big center we have. He can help Suzuki line when we play against big team. Do you have any prospect with skill and big body to replace him ?
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 90,722
- 39,615
I just like having him around. Yet, if you trade him, be the f*** sure you are getting a real top end prospect this time around.
Deebs
Without you, everything falls apart
- Feb 5, 2014
- 17,437
- 14,382
You think Mono gets us a real top end pick? I definitely don't because he's not a massive difference maker for a contending team. In my opinion anyways
Nedved
Registered User
- Mar 30, 2008
- 13,618
- 5,277
Trade for a 2024 1st rounder to a team that looks like a 1st round exit, and might be struggling to make the playoffs the following year. Best case scenario. We don't need another 2023 draft pick, I would rather gamble on the possibility of a lower 2024 pick. I think he brings in a young prospect too. He's a great rental.
Just turned 28 years old so he is still young. Depends on his salary demands but chances are you won't draft a player that good with a late first rounder. With a good contract, I would keep him as a #2 C that will become hopefully our #3 C in 3-4 years in a very good team. I never though he would be that good after his injuries....
Look at the poll results, only a few have a problem with that.
You aren't getting a top end prospect unless a GM is really desperate. You get draft picks and turn them into top end prospects. All the trades so far (except the Barron one) the key acquisiition was the draft pick. And even in the Lehkonen trade it may end up being a big win and Hutson turns out to be 1st round material.
26Mats
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2018
- 33,364
- 25,755
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,120
- 12,475
Do you think Gallagher is young also and has years of good hockey left?
First Line
Summer of Love
Looks like you are actually in favor of trading him. You say you value him and yet don’t want to pay him what he’s worth. Sure, let’s offer the guy 5 years at a similar AAV as Armia.
It’s not a big mystery what he’s worth, look at 50 points UFA centers recent signings and tell me if you want to sign that. You can’t make up your own salary scale.
Garnet76
Registered User
If you trade him who plays 2nd line center next year? The problem is Montreal wasn't expected to be playing .500 hockey at this point. I'm afraid this will screw up the long term competitiveness of the team.
5 years from now we could possibly look back of this draft and wish we had higher picks. The Comments "well that team was fun to watch" won't hold as much weight in that conversation.
5 years from now we could possibly look back of this draft and wish we had higher picks. The Comments "well that team was fun to watch" won't hold as much weight in that conversation.
Nedved
Registered User
- Mar 30, 2008
- 13,618
- 5,277
It's more about a commitment to a rebuild. Signing him and not trying to make a difference for the future shows a message to fans that they're content with a wildcard showing and maybe the odd playoff series win. I want a cup contender and trading Monahan probably gives us a few more losses too. We're not winning anything in our division. It's nasty right now.
MakeTheGoalsLarger
Registered User
I get what you're saying as I'm not one who wants the team to acquire a plethora of 1st round picks until the end of time. We have a good base of young players already.You do understand that it usually takes 5 years for guys to make a difference in the NHL?
When your late first-round pick will make the league you're going to advocate for trading Suzuki because we need draft picks and so on!!!!
But Suzuki is the cornerstone of the rebuild. So his age sets the threshold. It doesn't mean everyone has to be 23 or under but 28 is too old considering the team isn't close to be contending yet.
I think trading him is the best move as Monahan's a bit of an awkward fit. He's at an awkward age and not really good enough to be a 2C without an elite #1, you're going to have to pay him as a C even if his long-term fit is on the wing, and he'll be too expensive as a 3C. To me trading him is the smoothest asset management move here, and it's what I hope they end up doing.
With that being said, I think the idea that the Monahan decision represents whether we have Smart Visionary Management or Bergevin 2.0 is a bit overdramatic. We have a shitload of vets leaving and tons of cap space opened up for this offseason, with the cap projected to rise a lot over the next few years. Keeping Monahan around as a 2-3C isn't the end of the world or something that's going to ruin a rebuild.
With that being said, I think the idea that the Monahan decision represents whether we have Smart Visionary Management or Bergevin 2.0 is a bit overdramatic. We have a shitload of vets leaving and tons of cap space opened up for this offseason, with the cap projected to rise a lot over the next few years. Keeping Monahan around as a 2-3C isn't the end of the world or something that's going to ruin a rebuild.
Last edited:
