Proposal: Trade Proposal Thread: Part 61

[Habs Halifax]

lol i'm not spinning anything.

I keep repeating the idea of eating half of the salary of 3 players is a fantasy.

You keep discussing it like it's an actual possibility.

If anyone is spinning anything...it's you

I'm not spinning anything. I've been very consistent. You just tried to say I am saying it's simple and that is not the reality I presented. Two things I have said to you over and over again...

"Historic Move"
"Tough Decisions have to be made if we Rebuild"

You got caught again in your disagreement narrative. Trying to downplay it with false comprehension on purpose. Those two statements I just repeated indicate what to you? That this is a simple thing we can do? Why, cause I'm talking about it a lot? . That's some weird comprehension on what I said if you ask me.

 

[417]

I'm not spinning anything. I've been very consistent. You just tried to say I am saying it's simple and that is not the reality I presented. Two things I have said to you over and over again...

"Historic Move"
"Tough Decisions have to be made if we Rebuild"

Sure sounds like you're making it simple to me.

You got caught again in your disagreement narrative. Trying to downplay it with false comprehension on purpose.

I'm downplaying it because it makes no sense.

 

[Mandalorian]

Maybe on the surface...but not quite.

That's not really an argument just a statement, but I'm gonna let you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't want to bother answering.

Once again, there hasn't been any explanation as to what is so different about Suter and Parise buyouts (long-term cap hit for players that don't play on your team) and retaining heavily on Petry, Gallagher or Price in terms of money loss(or gained, depends how you see it) and impact on the futur of the team.

1. All three 3 players are still very much capable, i'm not desperate to get rid of either of them

2. They have between 3 to 5 years left on their contracts, that's too much term left to carry IMO

1. Suter is still a capable player.

2. Parise and Suter had 7 years left on their contract

 

[vokiel]

Price and Gally to Edmonton for Bourgeault or Holloway + 2022 1st round pick. IF they want habs to retain %, add young assets and picks.

In your dreams perhaps.

 

[DiglettDangles]

Option 1: Price at 100% salary for the next five years.

Option 2: Price at 50% salary for the next five years, 1st round draft pick, one or two good prospects.

I think that from a rebuilding perspective, option #2 is clearly better for the Habs.

Extremely flawed take, more likely:

Option 1: Price at 100% salary for the next two years then LTIRetirement.

Option 2: Price at 50% salary for the next five years even if LTIR, + package of futures to be determined.

You make it sound like the gamble is to give up on Price for futures, but the real gamble is whether or not you can afford to let him go and stomach $5M of unusable cap in 2-3 years. I have much greater confidence in Price not being able to play in 3 years than in our 2022 drafting/development team.

To compensate for that massive salary cap dent, you'll need players back that will be on their ELC and FOR SURE outperform their salary collectively by $5M. Do you know any such package of prospects available for a 34yo, injured goalie?

When you look at it that way and hoping the cap finally goes up, retention up to $2.5M mayyyybe makes sense for the Habs if you're optimistic, because that's what you can hope for with a late 1st round pick - unfortunately that cuts the trading destination list by probably half.

Anyways, the answer is simple, we'll need that money to lock down Bedard after his ELC .

 

[Mandalorian]

Extremely flawed take, more likely:

Option 1: Price at 100% salary for the next two years then LTIRetirement.

Option 2: Price at 50% salary for the next five years even if LTIR, + package of futures to be determined.

You make it sound like the gamble is to give up on Price for futures, but the real gamble is whether or not you can afford to let him go and stomach $5M of unusable cap in 2-3 years. I have much greater confidence in Price not being able to play in 3 years than in our 2022 drafting/development team.

To compensate for that massive salary cap dent, you'll need players back that will be on their ELC and FOR SURE outperform their salary collectively by $5M. Do you know any such package of prospects available for a 34yo, injured goalie?

When you look at it that way and hoping the cap finally goes up, retention up to $2.5M mayyyybe makes sense for the Habs if you're optimistic, because that's what you can hope for with a late 1st round pick - unfortunately that cuts the trading destination list by probably half.

Anyways, the answer is simple, we'll need that money to lock down Bedard after his ELC .

Bedard ELC will end in 2025-2026, meaning he won't earn big buck before 2026-2027. Price will be off the book at this point, this is irrelevant.

If anything, retaining on big contracts would allow to free some cap space in order to sign Romanov, Caufield, Primeau and Poelhing to their bridge contract.

 

[DiglettDangles]

Bedard ELC will end in 2025-2026, meaning he won't earn big buck before 2026-2027. Price will be off the book at this point, this is irrelevant.

If anything, retaining on big contracts would allow to free some cap space in order to sign Romanov, Caufield, Primeau and Poelhing to their bridge contract.

Yes, you are correct, I was just trying to lighten up the mood
If anything, it's a sign

 

[417]

That's not really an argument just a statement, but I'm gonna let you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't want to bother answering.

There's nothing for me to argue lol buyouts are not the same as salary retention.

Period.

Apples and oranges are both fruits, doesn't make them the same, so i'm not going to act like they are.

Once again, there hasn't been any explanation as to what is so different about Suter and Parise buyouts (long-term cap hit for players that don't play on your team) and retaining heavily on Petry, Gallagher or Price in terms of money loss(or gained, depends how you see it) and impact on the futur of the team.



1. Suter is still a capable player.

2. Parise and Suter had 7 years left on their contract

It's just not the same...I feel like as an Owner, you know, the person cutting the cheque.

If you decide to buyout a player, you're essentially saying you'd rather pay them off than continue the association. You assume the loss.

It's not the same when you're retaining salary.

If it was as easy or the same as your suggesting, you'd see a lot more teams retaining salary in order to get deals done.

 

[417]

Extremely flawed take, more likely:

Option 1: Price at 100% salary for the next two years then LTIRetirement.

Option 2: Price at 50% salary for the next five years even if LTIR, + package of futures to be determined.

You make it sound like the gamble is to give up on Price for futures, but the real gamble is whether or not you can afford to let him go and stomach $5M of unusable cap in 2-3 years. I have much greater confidence in Price not being able to play in 3 years than in our 2022 drafting/development team.

To compensate for that massive salary cap dent, you'll need players back that will be on their ELC and FOR SURE outperform their salary collectively by $5M. Do you know any such package of prospects available for a 34yo, injured goalie?

When you look at it that way and hoping the cap finally goes up, retention up to $2.5M mayyyybe makes sense for the Habs if you're optimistic, because that's what you can hope for with a late 1st round pick - unfortunately that cuts the trading destination list by probably half.

Anyways, the answer is simple, we'll need that money to lock down Bedard after his ELC .

This.

 

[Schwang]

Was a rebuild announced? I’ll believe there is one when I see it implemented. Geoff doesn’t believe in rebuilds.

He did say he'd accept whatever the new GM's plan is (and Gorton too I'd assume). I think it false to say he doesn't believe in rebuilds. Molson seems to be fairly hands off to be honest. Besides, I don't think there's a person alive who thinks this team and core can be salvaged.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Sure sounds like you're making it simple to me.

I'm downplaying it because it makes no sense.

It's not simple. Talking about it a lot does not mean it's simple.

It might not make sense to you yes. I'm not trying to spin back false narratives back at you for it either. There was one part where I said you are not wrong, it's a business.

 

[Habs Halifax]

He did say he'd accept whatever the new GM's plan is (and Gorton too I'd assume). I think it false to say he doesn't believe in rebuilds. Molson seems to be fairly hands off to be honest. Besides, I don't think there's a person alive who thinks this team and core can be salvaged.

Agreed. I really did like how Molson handled himself in the press conference after Bergevin was fired. He's not hiding anything and he said he's not afraid of anything either... but he will have questions to be answered in any plan. It's very reasonable.

Will Gorton and the new GM want a full rebuild that last 3-5 years? Nobody knows yet

 

[Mandalorian]

He did say he'd accept whatever the new GM's plan is (and Gorton too I'd assume). I think it false to say he doesn't believe in rebuilds. Molson seems to be fairly hands off to be honest. Besides, I don't think there's a person alive who thinks this team and core can be salvaged.

Yes there is. Some here still think we should try to bank on the Petry, Gallagher and Price window and try to be competitive starting next season.

 

[Habs Halifax]

There's nothing for me to argue lol buyouts are not the same as salary retention.

Period.

Apples and oranges are both fruits, doesn't make them the same, so i'm not going to act like they are.


It's just not the same...I feel like as an Owner, you know, the person cutting the cheque.

If you decide to buyout a player, you're essentially saying you'd rather pay them off than continue the association. You assume the loss.

It's not the same when you're retaining salary.

If it was as easy or the same as your suggesting, you'd see a lot more teams retaining salary in order to get deals done.

If the yearly numbers are something Molson can live with and still make profits, why would we not consider this historic move in terms of retention? It's not this one time $51M check to paid up front. I showed you the yearly numbers in a previous post. Still a very serious thing to consider but if we are to rebuild and want to be contenders and Molson can still earn profits (after retention), What's stopping us? Nobody has done it before?

 

[Schwang]

Gorton is NOT a gm. I'm sure he's not on the same leash as Bergevin. Even then, I think this was mostly Bergevins decisions not Molson.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Gorton is NOT a gm. I'm sure he's not on the same leash as Bergevin. Even then, I think this was mostly Bergevins decisions not Molson.

I don't think it's a leash narrative. It's a review process that pretty much all owners are involved with when it comes to major franchise decisions.

 

[417]

It's not simple. Talking about it a lot does not mean it's simple.

It might not make sense to you yes. I'm not trying to spin back false narratives back at you for it either. There was one part where I said you are not wrong, it's a business.

Well when you're talking about retaining salary on 3 players who have 3, 4 and 5 years left of term...then it's strictly a business decision & discussion.

And it ain't our money sooo...

 

[417]

If the yearly numbers are something Molson can live with and still make profits, why would we not consider this historic move in terms of retention?

Agreed here but it's not like you presented a business plan that we can analyze and discuss either. I can only respond to what you proposed, which again, I understand where you're coming from, I just question the feasibility.

I've got a plan to acquire Alexis Lafrenière, Braden Schneider & the Ranger 2023 1st round pick...a historic move (I really do, no joke lol).

Doesn't mean it's feasible?

It's not this one time $51M check to paid up front. I showed you the yearly numbers in a previous post. Still a very serious thing to consider but if we are to rebuild and want to be contenders and Molson can still earn profits (after retention), What's stopping us? Nobody has done it before?

I'm aware of that lol.

The yearly numbers, i'm not 100% sure you got right though but let's say you did, as you wrote above, it's a very serious thing to consider and I think there are less cost prohibitive ways to go about rebuilding and turning this team into contenders.

As you've referenced, you're talking about salary retention at a HISTORIC never-before seen levels here.

There are better ways to go about it.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Well when you're talking about retaining salary on 3 players who have 3, 4 and 5 years left of term...then it's strictly a business decision & discussion.

And it ain't our money sooo...

"Tough Decisions"
"Would be a Historic Move"

 

[DAChampion]

Extremely flawed take, more likely:

Option 1: Price at 100% salary for the next two years then LTIRetirement.

Option 2: Price at 50% salary for the next five years even if LTIR, + package of futures to be determined.

You make it sound like the gamble is to give up on Price for futures, but the real gamble is whether or not you can afford to let him go and stomach $5M of unusable cap in 2-3 years. I have much greater confidence in Price not being able to play in 3 years than in our 2022 drafting/development team.

To compensate for that massive salary cap dent, you'll need players back that will be on their ELC and FOR SURE outperform their salary collectively by $5M. Do you know any such package of prospects available for a 34yo, injured goalie?

When you look at it that way and hoping the cap finally goes up, retention up to $2.5M mayyyybe makes sense for the Habs if you're optimistic, because that's what you can hope for with a late 1st round pick - unfortunately that cuts the trading destination list by probably half.

Anyways, the answer is simple, we'll need that money to lock down Bedard after his ELC .

If Price is going into retirement in three years then that is all the more reason for the Habs to trade him now while he still has value.

 

[McGees]

Is it just me or does he not actually answer any question lol. the life of an ‘insider’

 

[JoelWarlord]

Retaining 50% on Price doesn't make any sense to me unless the offer is exceptional. I'm not throwing 5.25M into a black hole for 5 years and restricting my retain slots to solve a contender's goaltending problems for the sake of a late 1st and someone else's Ryan Poehling. No thanks.

The problem is you still need to pay 2 goalies on top of the retained 5.25M. If you think Primeau is the goalie of the future he's going to cost 5M in 2-3 years and you'll still need a backup who costs around 3M. At that point you're spending 13M total between Price retention and a Primeau+Backup tandem, another team is going to have to really make it worth our while to not just spend 13-15 on a Primeau/Price tandem instead. Price is overpaid but he's still a very capable NHL starting goalie. That's without even getting into the fact that the odds are pretty high he only plays 2-3 more years and then LTIR retires anyway.

Same with Petry, he's 25 games removed from being a high end top pair RHD making 6.25M. Why am I eating half of that salary to move him for a 1st and a B prospect? Pay up or we're perfectly happy to keep him and try our luck selling him next year, and I'm perfectly comfortable taking the risk that you end up eating the contract. Gallagher easily has enough value to move him without retaining too, so again, you need to make it worth it to burn a retain slot and eat a ton of money for 5 more years.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Agreed here but it's not like you presented a business plan that we can analyze and discuss either. I can only respond to what you proposed, which again, I understand where you're coming from, I just question the feasibility.

I've got a plan to acquire Alexis Lafrenière, Braden Schneider & the Ranger 2023 1st round pick...a historic move (I really do, no joke lol).

Doesn't mean it's feasible?


I'm aware of that lol.

The yearly numbers, i'm not 100% sure you got right though but let's say you did, as you wrote above, it's a very serious thing to consider and I think there are less cost prohibitive ways to go about rebuilding and turning this team into contenders.

As you've referenced, you're talking about salary retention at a HISTORIC never-before seen levels here.

There are better ways to go about it.

Alexis Lafrenière, Braden Schneider & the Ranger 2023 1st round pick as a historic move is a bad example. This is about money and if Molson can still run a profit after a substantial retention.

Don't waste your time anymore. It's an idea I personally would approach Molson with if we were able to get the futures we want from it.

 

[vokiel]

Is it just me or does he not actually answer any question lol. the life of an ‘insider’

I think Brendan Gallagher is very trade-able, but those kind of contracts are usually exchanged in the off-season.

Price isn't trade-able and will most likely never be.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think Brendan Gallagher is very trade-able, but those kind of contracts are usually exchanged in the off-season.

Price isn't trade-able and will most likely never be.

I personally think Gallagher's contract is the hardest to move at full AAV or very close to the difficulty of moving Price at full AAV.

Gallagher should be making the same as Atkinson and the bad news is Gallagher is not trending well after Danault left. His hard work and energy on every shift reputation can only go so far. However, the story changes if we were to retain down to $4.5M or $4M

Atkinson was just traded with 4 years left (age 32-35) for Voracek who had 3 years left. Blue Jackets took the cap hit difference. If you think we can move Gallagher, think along the lines of that trade. Same age with similar term left