HabzSauce
Registered User
- Jun 10, 2022
- 1,735
- 2,380
6x8M with the Habs? Discount price to be apart of the Canadiens glory days 2.0
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #80
- Thread starter Boyon90
- Start date
- Status
Tetragrammaton
Registered User
- Mar 17, 2022
- 2,305
- 2,923
I’m what alternate universe could Gallagher score 50 points? He would need to play 1st line with Suzuki and he would need to be 3 years younger
HabzSauce
Registered User
- Jun 10, 2022
- 1,735
- 2,380
I also really want Dobson. From this group above, I'd trade away Anderson ++ if that's what it took for Dobson.
Huberdeau - Suzuki - Caufield
Slaf - Dubois - XXX (Roy??)
Pitlick - Dach - 2023 1st/Mesar
Farrell Evans Armia
Guhle - Dobson
Matheson - Barron
Harris - Malioux
PRICE
Toronto's biggest problem was trading away picks and prospects so they don't have ELCs ready to fill in the holes in the lineup and instead had to keep hoping to find players like Bunting on the cheap and then losing them. Habs could compete starting in 2023-2024 with Huberdeau and Dubois.
By that time, we'll have tons of players on ELCs. We have like 30 prospects with NHL potential. Hub and Dub also should not be compared to Marleau. The counterfactual where Toronto doesn't sign Tavares could also see them unable to win a round. Habs cannot turn their nose up at such talented players.
If Price can come back healthy, the team only needs a few D prospects to step up and to sign one Dman to be legit contenders. If he's done and goes on LTIR, we have 10.5 million more to spend and the Hub/Dub contracts are much more digestible.
Think of all the junk we have on the cap now that could be jettisoned for such talent. We would have a ready-made window with Slaf, 2023 1st, Barron, Harris, Guhle, Mailloux, Farrell, Roy, Mesar, Beck, Heinemann etc. on ELCs. A nice balance of vets and young players, much like when the Ducks won the cup with Perry and Getzlaf.
Last edited:
The reason is that he doesn’t help us get where we need to be. He only helps is be bad enough to just miss the playoffs. We need to build the middle or the ice and do it with young players. The established players come in when the rest of the roster is built and ready. All you’re doing is promoting mediocrity. I’m sick of being a bubble team.
Andrei79
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2013
- 16,413
- 30,453
There's no chance you can get Dobson for Anderson+. No chance at all. He's 6'4", a right shot and kept up with Dahlins (another 2018 draftee) production this year.
BozoTheClown
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2021
- 1,593
- 2,040
le_sean
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2006
- 41,986
- 45,105
Why can’t it be the other way around? You sign the known elite players and then you hope your prospects on ELCs can come in and produce/be elite themselves.
26Mats
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2018
- 33,355
- 25,747
I remember that year everone said there were 10 candidates to go top 10, but no one knew what order after 1 and 2 ( Dahlin and Svechnikov).
Dobson was one of those top 10 that Timmins was rumored to like a lot pre draft. But then Kravtsov and Hayton get picked in the top 10 and Dobson ends up being the last of those top 10 picked, at 12th overall.
Good thing the Islanders had 2 firsts because they picked Wahlstrom right before him.
BigDaddyLurch
Have some PRIDE, Eric...
Kudo Shinichi
Registered User
- Apr 20, 2012
- 21,220
- 28,174
Can't see Huberdeau be willing to give a major discount when he's been vastly underpaid the last 5 years
BigDaddyLurch
Have some PRIDE, Eric...
...then he doesn't fit our rebuild...now would be a terrible time for HuGo to pull a Bargain Bin...
Where we need to be is a team that has superstars on it. Adding a superstar helps you get there.
We have Nick Suzuki signed long-term, just traded for Kirby Dach, and there have been non-stop rumours about Pierre-Luc Dubois, on top of the Habs being in line to draft high again in 2023 in a draft loaded with centers. They aren't done there yet but it's not like there's nothing in place already or that we can't possibly consider a winger in the next year or two.
Yeah, that's the point. The roster will be ready to start making improvements as soon as next year and adding Huberdeau to the lineup would make players like Caufield and Suzuki way better and help the team improve on the PP quickly.
If Suzuki, Caufield, Guhle, Slafkovsky, Dach, a high pick in 2023, and all the other picks we've made in the 2018-2022 draft periods aren't enough to justify adding a top player and devleop into a good team then we may as well trade everyone but Slafkovsky and Guhle for picks and prospects to tank for 5 years because we truly have no foundation if you can't justify adding Huberdeau.
There is a compelling argument that Huberdeau may not be the player you spend 10M on at his age and that he might be overvalued given he can't defend, but that's a separate argument from this "promoting mediocrity" stuff. He would be the most talented Canadiens forward this millenium. Tanking is a strategy, it's not a penance you have to do to appease the hockey gods. It's used to acquire elite talent through the draft, the point of doing it is to get elite talent, not to fulfill a procedural set of requirements so you can check off all the boxes to become a good team. If you can get elite talent in ways that aren't tanking it makes sense to do it.
The reason to not acquire Huberdeau is because you think he's not elite or won't be for long, not because adding an elite player somehow makes the team mediocre.
Last edited:
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,120
- 12,473
Our rebuild does indeed have a deadline: five years, give or take.
If we aren’t somewhere highly competitive in five years, we need another sell-off and rebuild.
It’s simply a product of the most unavoidable thing: time. Suzuki, Caufield, Dach, etc are at a certain age. Once they get to their late 20s they will be PAST THEIR PRIME. Injuries, contract issues, trade requests, etc will hit our budding core — so if we decide to proceed with Suzuki, Caufield et al. we need to respect the timeline.
We are not in a Start From Zero situation and I think many are having trouble conceptualizing it — we only know what a scorched earth rebuild looks like but can’t imagine what the current one which started with a pair of good NHL player assets, should become.
It is foolish to cut off and ignore Suzuki and Caufield, and we saw that Hughes traded FUTURES for Dach because he is betting on the budding core to grow. Hughes understands the assignment, Gorton did the same thing in New York. The time of tanking for tanking’s sake is over. If it ever worked (I count a c. 40% success rate) the parameters have since changed.
The rebuild is a build, that means adding talent and not turning your nose up at one of the best players in the NHL if he’s available at a caphit that is suitable.
Paying for past performance is absolutely a concern and something to be cautious against. There is nothing wrong with having a number in mind for a player and not going above it. If only bozo Bergevin did the same for Price and Gallagher.
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,120
- 12,473
That’s fine.
If a player doesn’t fit the projected cap distribution it shouldn’t be forced but I would say that paying elite premium players 1m more is way better than paying grinders 1m more.
Ultimately the best way to maximize talent-caphit is to develop it yourself, rip it the player off when they’re RFA and then lock them into a team-friendly UFA contract until they decline. It’s easier said than done and often only happens on good teams with good atmosphere and good chances at sustained success.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,595
- 6,240
Selling off everything and rebuilding again in 5 years is up there as one of the dumbest ideas ever put on these boards.
For reference the last 2 cup champions
Colorado
Drafted Landeskog in 2011 and MacKinnon in 2013 and it took 11 years to finally win, and 5-6 years into that rebuild they were still struggling and drafted Makar at 4th in 2017. With your logic they should have restarted the rebuild and sold off Landeskog and MacKinnon to build around Makar. What a mistake that would have been.
Tampa
Drafted Stamkos and Hedman in 08 & 09 and it took 12 years to win their cup in 2020, and what a surprise 5 years into that rebuild they drafting 3rd overall and taking Drouin in 2013. With you at the helm they would've sold off Stamkos, Hedman and tried to rebuild around Drouin, yikes.
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,120
- 12,473
I specifically just identified that we are not "selling off everything". We have two critical pieces, two pieces that would other need two different tank seasons to acquire: a top6 C in Suzuki who is playoff tested and signed long term and a top6 W in Caufield with boundless potential to grow.
Colorado and Tampa are specifically good examples of double rebuilds. Colorado gave up on Duchene and refit their team and Tampa endured a lot of pain and shuffled through both players and coaches.
I don't support selling off good players ever so I wouldn't have sold Stamkos or Hedmen to begin with... just as I don't want to sell Suzuki and Caufield. You've got me all wrong!
Two different situations.
Price was over paid, but the idea that he was a key player to bet on was not flawed.
Gallagher was not about having a number and not going over it. Would we be that much better off if MB had stuck to $6M? No, the error was betting on Gallagher and many foresaw it.
The consequences of backing Gallagher and jettisoning Danault were apocalyptic.
Player evaluation is the key to being a good GM.
Imagine if we had taken Noah Dobson instead of Jesperi Kotkaniemi, we'd have our big number 1 D with Norris potential right now. Or even if we did not "reach" like that at #3, Brady Tkachuk or Quinn Hughes would have had significant impact too.
The year before, we took Ryan Poehling at #25 when Jason Robertson was available. Robertson's 17 year old season was incredible, he had size and playoff moxie, plus he played 160 miles away .... what the freakin puck? Who needs goal scorers?
Anyway, suffice it to say that the dollar amount of contracts was only one problem MB had, and not the biggest one.
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,120
- 12,473
@BaseballCoach
I think betting on Price to be a key player until he's 38 was a deeply flawed premise, as was the contract structure -- he makes 7.5m in his final two years. No chance of early retirement with 15m cash on the line. His caphit at the time of signing was a whopping 14% of the Cap Ceiling. Ridiculous number.
Carey Price had injury issues before he signed the contract.
Most teams that invest so much in a goaltender regret it as we are now. A lot of signs were against Price's renewal but the most important one was that the team was not built to win a god damn thing, so all Price did was keep the Habs in contention to make the playoffs. And that's actually all he achieved until that unlikely run to the Finals last year.
His extension was signed July 2017 to kick in from 2018-2019 season.
2017-2018 -> 49gp, 3.11 and 0.900, Habs obviously miss the playoffs with such numbers
2018-2019 -> 66gp, 2.49 and 0.918, Habs miss the playoffs again
2019-2020 -> 58gp, 2.79 and 0.909, Habs qualify for the covid play-ins and then lose in first round of the playoffs (Price puts up great numbers 1.78 and 0.936)
2020-2021 -> 25gp, 2.64 and 0.901, Habs barely make the playoffs and go on an unlikely run to the Finals (Price puts up terrific numbers in the first three rounds and duds in the final round total 2.28 0.924)
2021-2022 -> 5gp 3.63 and 0.878
It's a very bad deal for the Habs and an impossibly good one for Carey Price. The Habs are paying through the nose for past heroics until Price is 38.
As for Gallagher I would've sold him at a huge premium given the flat cap, Gallagher's hype and rep, and his uber-low caphit. Unfortunately for all, I wasn't the GM at the time. But in Bergevin's defence, it was impossible to expect him to sell when he was so balls-in invested in his broken core of Weber-Price.
I think betting on Price to be a key player until he's 38 was a deeply flawed premise, as was the contract structure -- he makes 7.5m in his final two years. No chance of early retirement with 15m cash on the line. His caphit at the time of signing was a whopping 14% of the Cap Ceiling. Ridiculous number.
Carey Price had injury issues before he signed the contract.
Most teams that invest so much in a goaltender regret it as we are now. A lot of signs were against Price's renewal but the most important one was that the team was not built to win a god damn thing, so all Price did was keep the Habs in contention to make the playoffs. And that's actually all he achieved until that unlikely run to the Finals last year.
His extension was signed July 2017 to kick in from 2018-2019 season.
2017-2018 -> 49gp, 3.11 and 0.900, Habs obviously miss the playoffs with such numbers
2018-2019 -> 66gp, 2.49 and 0.918, Habs miss the playoffs again
2019-2020 -> 58gp, 2.79 and 0.909, Habs qualify for the covid play-ins and then lose in first round of the playoffs (Price puts up great numbers 1.78 and 0.936)
2020-2021 -> 25gp, 2.64 and 0.901, Habs barely make the playoffs and go on an unlikely run to the Finals (Price puts up terrific numbers in the first three rounds and duds in the final round total 2.28 0.924)
2021-2022 -> 5gp 3.63 and 0.878
It's a very bad deal for the Habs and an impossibly good one for Carey Price. The Habs are paying through the nose for past heroics until Price is 38.
As for Gallagher I would've sold him at a huge premium given the flat cap, Gallagher's hype and rep, and his uber-low caphit. Unfortunately for all, I wasn't the GM at the time. But in Bergevin's defence, it was impossible to expect him to sell when he was so balls-in invested in his broken core of Weber-Price.
Sometimes I figure it out and sometimes I'm glossing over and don't consider it. No harm no foul, I hope?
The saçcarecrows keep repeating he will be 38 in the final year of his contract. That next contract will be 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.
It's not as dangerous a gamble as some make it out to be, given the style op play that Huberdeau has and the way playmaking ages relatively well as a skill set.
I'd go 7 on Huberdeau, even: 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36.
Last two years might not be full value, but they might still be a PPG as well. It al depends on the sum total talent assembled. If Huberdeau doesn't have to do it all by himself, he'll still be productive at that age because opponents won't be concentrating just on him.
IMO, for him to sign in Montreal, maybe with a bit of a discount (9.5M, not 10M or 10,5M), we need to offer him maximum term -- and it's not an automatic mistake to do as much. Structure the contract with signing bonuses, etc., etc. in order to limit the tax burden of the contract and there won't be a significant disadvantage to Huberdeau signing in Montreal.
Laurent Duvernay-Tardif's agent, Sasha Ghavami, already explained this at the time of Radulov allegedly signing with Dallas because it was more advantageous, tax-wise (which it wasn't).
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,120
- 12,473
Why would we want to acquire good players when they’ll get in the way of us being bad for years on end in the pursuit of potentially good players??
I think this will be the thesis of the next substack post. I’ve already reached out to @DAChampion but I’ll talk with a few others to see if they’re interested in their take on the notion of CuttingThe Tank Short.
I think this will be the thesis of the next substack post. I’ve already reached out to @DAChampion but I’ll talk with a few others to see if they’re interested in their take on the notion of CuttingThe Tank Short.
Playing with elite players will positively affect your prospects' confidence, give them an example on how to plan their training regimen and maximize their skill sets and increase the likelihood if them reaching their ceilings.
Nah, never mind, that's a bad idea...
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,120
- 12,473
We don’t need elite players, we need to lose more so we can possibly later get elite players!
And if you say that we haven’t developed a single elite forward in XY years so why expect that to happen now, they will say it was because we didn’t tank enough. The dial only goes one way: more tanking until success.
Politics and angry ranting aside, it reminds me of the Covid non-pharmaceutical interventions NPIs (eg Lockdowns, Curfews, Restrictions, Mask mandates etc.) at the onset there was hardly any room for analysis of what works and what doesn’t, which measures have what cost-benefit, which shouldn’t be implemented, etc. It was always “The current NPIs didn’t work as well as initially thought, so we need more restrictive NPIs so they can work!”. For every good intended action we have to analyze if it actually does the thing it is meant to do! The dial cannot only go one way. [panic has gone away with the onset of vaccines and there is more common sense in public health measures now, thankfully. Curfews and locking down beaches and parks was just ridiculous]
I don’t think we have tanked properly, that’s true. And I agree that high draft picks = higher likelihood of getting top players.
But I also don’t think tanking is a tool that doesn’t have any drawbacks — I see cautionary tales in Buffalo and Arizona, even in Edmonton and Florida, Ottawa that never spent money or acquired players until this summer, etc.
You pick the right tool for the job. We had cap inefficient player-assets so Kent Hughes did a marvellous job of selling as many of them as he could. The next step is to ensure this season is upbeat and as positive as possible because we’re in for a lot of losing — a de facto tank. After this season is over we will shed even more deadweight, so it would be foolish to aim to tank for the third year in a row when the team will have both the cap space and the quantity of assets to acquire quality players. Having established vets ahead to take on the hard minutes and putting our prospects in a position to succeed would be good, not bad, for player development imo.
Last edited:
- Status
