Because there is no precedent for such a contract. 65 points really isn't significant, especially considering how his compete is wildly inconsistent and how awful he is defensively. Suzuki has done it so not sure why you said "literally no other Hab". The Habs have the youngest top 6 in the league, it's not a high bar to set when saying that it's still more production than most of our team.
Sure there is. And the point is that if you want a cost effective contract, you better pay through the nose for it. 65 points is 1st line production. Easily. And I'm not advocating paying anything of significance for him, I'm saying Montreal has cap space available, it makes a lot of sense to take a chance on Laine when there is almost zero opportunity cost.
Guys like Domi and Tatar had that kind of production with us too, but they are heavily flawed players that it didn't make up for this "significant" production. Not comparing the players to Laine, but you can't be a flawed player while only putting up 65 points if you're making 8.7 million.
What? Domi and Tatar were great in Montreal. Domi got moved because of contract demands and Bergevin wanted to get MOAR BIG, and Tatar wasn't re-signed because Montreal didn't have the cap space (and for some reason liked Hoffman more).
I don't care about saving Molson's money, it's about asset management. Seeking out dog shit contracts and paying assets for them is moronic even if we have the cap space. The extreme version of this would be saying "let's go after Skinner since he's produced more than any Hab in the past 3 seasons" before the buyout while ignoring his flaws and accepting his contract because we can afford it.
We're talking about trading something like a veteran bottom 6er, a prospect and/or pick that wont get a realistic shot in Montreal. Going after a guy like Laine is about asset management. Unless the plan is to not do anything and position the team for another pick in the top-5 range. Which also works for me, but will bother others.
And there's a difference gambling on a 26 year old whose contract poses no issue for Montreal and a 32 year old whose contract is one year too long.
I don't get this comparison at all. Nashville is a playoff team that wants to win, Habs are still rebuilding. Whether or not they pay more for Laine than us is irrelevant given how we are at completely different stages.
Value of a player doesn't change based on who would have more interest. You don't want to trade for Laine because you don't think a rebuilding team should trade for 26+ vets? Fine. But that's a different reason than complaining about health or defensive deficiencies. Or for some reason minimizing the point production of a guy who, over the last 3 seasons, has a better P/60 than anybody on the Habs and half of the first liners in the NHL.
Again, you're proving my point for me. We got PAID to take someone like Monahan. Handsomely I might add. If Columbus pays us a 1st to take on Laine, of course I'd do it. We didn't give up assets for Monahan and hope he'd bounce back from consecutive disappointing seasons. You can't use the benefit of hindsight to say that we could have paid small assets for him and flipped him this year for a 1st because Hughes would have never done that in the first place.
Because Monahan was significantly worse than Laine. I'd expect Montreal to be paid if they were acquiring someone like M-E Vlasic.
I'm nor saying Laine is great, the point is you can either leeverage cap space to get a shot at a player that may fit long term or become a better trade chip, or you can pay a **** ton for a prospect like McGroarty or **** ton plus for an NHLer like Necas/Zegras, who may not actually be better in the short or long term.
Its like the Dubois discourse (another 2016 draft pick who can't defend and has off ice question marks that may or may not be fair). Paying what LA did? Hell no. Paying very little (with no long term cap risk)? I'm game.
If the plan is to add someone as management has suggested but definitely not committed to, better to mitigate risk when you're still figuring out what you have. Alternatively, just keep rebuilding slowly (which I'm fine with too). But lets not pretend that two dimes and loonie get you a twenty dollar bill.
