HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #86: 2023-2024 Season
- Thread starter MarkovsKnee
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
LaP
Registered User
There's no way to get rid of Gallagher as long as he's able to play. Last year of his contract sure but nobody will take this 6 millions atm not even a bottom team cause the contract was not front loaded.
LaP
Registered User
I think he's talking about the experience / helping kids part of Monahan. Manahan skills wont help us when we'll be ready to win he'll be too old. Every year there's a couple of good vets on the decline you can add to help your kids if need be. Chicago had no trouble doing that last off season.
Monahan is 29.
He's healthy now and playing big minutes at a productive level (on a team with sparse offensive talent).
The injury history is a risk, no doubt. But if his body has healed well and he's dilligent in his on going & offseason maintenance, there's little reason to question his ability to remain a productive middle-6 player for the next 3-4 years (30-34)... Unless he has a major injury issue, and there's LTIR for that.
I'm willing to bet that Hughes/MSL are both keen and confident to see this team be ready to start pushing for deep playoff runs by the '25-'26 season (yr 2) & certainly no later than '26-'27 (yr 3). I won't be surprised in the least to see them view Monahan play an important veteran/support role in that timeframe.
I think people underestimate what Monahan's recovery and career resurrection reflects... And the adaptations to his game have proven effective. If they re-sign him for more than 2yrs it'll be because they are confident it's also sustainable imo.
We'll see...
If it were just about his experience, then I'd 100% agree...
But I don't think anyone is suggesting he should be re-signed for that.
He is playing quality hockey, and there's good reason to believe he can continue doing so for a few years, while also adding his 700+ games of experience, quality teammate/leadership, desire to play in this market & apparently strong belief in what the leadership/coaching is putting in place.
The former is way more of a reason for a multi-year extension. If it were just the latter, another 1-year deal would probably be the only offer they'd make, if at all... Imo
McGees
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2016
- 14,282
- 28,395
to be brief:I don't recall anyone who thought Gally's extension was a good idea, quite the opposite actually... One of the rare times when there was near unanimous agreement that it was a bad contract. The only question/debate I recall was about how long before he hit the wall/it became an anchor.
Petry's deal was different imo. His decline was far less obvious. Don't think anyone thought he'd be a borderline NHLer/healthy scratch before it was up...
Either way, if you're suggesting that no player should be signed past 30, I suspect the Knights were pretty happy to have Marchessault, Smith & Pietrangelo last year
1. yes many wanted them re-signed (maybe not once they saw the price but before trade deadline they did) the writing was on the wall that we needed to start rebuild but I guess they wanted to give a chance to Price.
2. We are not going on a run right now, we are rebuilding - trade the vets and get assets is part of that
3. When it is time to compete is when you start bringing in the vets, don't know why we are trying to rush it, (which is part of the reason we are in no-mans land and not getting another top 5 pick.)
4. Vegas was making a run for it so ya, vets are fine then (but you can't compare Monahan to Machessault or Pietrangelo)
- Jun 24, 2012
- 86,641
- 161,839
McGees
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2016
- 14,282
- 28,395
1-
Well if that's your point, then sure. Count me in. It would have been silly not to want the player re-signed to a reasonable deal... Only in fantasy land do teams completely jettison all veteran players... Even the Hawks scorched earth rebuild approach included signing /retaining veteran players...
2- trading vets is fine, I haven't seen one poster opposed to that. Trading all vets just for the sake of it, with no rhyme or reason, is again, silly.
3- wrong. See Blackhawks.Chicago. See Ducks, Anaheim .... And every other rebuild ever undertaken. Again, need to situate the approach in a realistic scenario. No team ices only young players, just not a realistic approach for what I thought were quite obvious reasons.
4- vets are a part of all teams. Happy to be proven wrong & in fact quite curious to see where you got this very strange extremist perception of how professional hockey teams operate as I've never seen it
It's way too early to decide that. A bridge 2-3 year deal gives the organization time to work on the continuing build while not committing many dollars to a period where we may be competing more seriously.
If we look at past cup WINNERS, they each had several guys in their low to mid thirties playing strong support roles. Let's not be afraid to have some on the roster as long as they are not making huge dollars, and as long as they really fit the group.
Before passing up on trading Monahan, Kent has to find out if he Sean will commit to getting this team to the next level without asking for too much AAV or turn. IF Monahan had been a Habs instead of a Flame draft pick and a decision had to be made at 29, this is probably how the management would think. I'm ok with looking at it the same way now, after observing how much of a glue factor he is. Characcter, humility, work ethic and TALENT. Proud to call him a Hab if that is what he feels too.
sampollock
Registered User
Gally is here until a buyout, maybe... to bad but what can the habs do
WinterLion
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 5,500
- 5,642
IF we keep Monahan. Which I am ok with. Then Evans and or Dvorak will probably be moved, no?
Yeah it sucks, but at least he works his butt off.
Yeah it sucks, but at least he works his butt off.
Adam Michaels
Registered User
Don't expect that to happen. You buy him out, you're on the hook until 2030 (and not cheap either).
Habs' priority right now is finding away to unload Armia and Dvorak. Gallagher can wait.
HuGort
Registered User
MarkovsKnee
Global Moderator
Earliest Montreal considers that is summer 2025, and probably not til 2026. As long as we're carrying Price's LTIR, we can afford Gallagher. Price's contract ends in summer 2026, Gallagher will have one year left on his contract. We either buy him out of that last year, or pay someone to take 50% of it for one year, $3.25m. Maybe to a team that needs to reach the cap floor, as it rises along with the max.
MarkovsKnee
Global Moderator
I'm hoping Dvorak. Evans already brings what Dvo does, but does a better of job it, while also being cheaper & faster. Jake is also a great teammate. Everyone seems to love him, and he is fine working the 4th line.
If you look at next year, Suzuki, Dach, Beck, Evans. Monahan if we resign him probably stays on wing. It seems to suit him now. He's a bit too slow for center.
Nah, I like the strength down the middle. Monahan has chemistry with Anderson also, renders Josh more useful.
Caufield-Suzuki-Slafkovsky
Newhook-Dach-Ylonen
Roy/Farrell/Heineman-Monahan-Anderson
RHP-Evans-Gallagher
sampollock
Registered User
HuGort
Registered User
I predict they sign Monahan. Savard, Allen, Dvorak are traded by deadline. We gain a 1st, 3rd and 4th in return
I got a crystal ball for Christmas. Can tell future now. Lol
It also says we win lottery and draft Celebrini. At draft Habs trade a late first for Kakko. Also sign Reinhart as UFA. I hope fans like these moves next summer. If not be long summer on here
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 30,802
- 22,568
I find it naive to put Savard in the same breath as gally , and armia.
In fact habs record with him in the lineup is way way better
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 81,879
- 55,174
He’s not hurting anything. We’re rebuilding. If anything, I’d be okay taking in another bad contract as long as it’s short and brings back prospects /picks.
- Status
