SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/NHL

Reasoning About Carey Price & Max Pacioretty

Jan. 29, 2018 at 3:45 p.m.
#1
Habs Fan
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 177
Likes: 16
Recently i've been seeing a lot of Rumors going around about Max Pacioretty & Carey Price My Question is what would Your Team pay for Pacioretty & Price.

Personally i think all these Rumors Are Not Going to happen but its Fun to think about this stuff.
Jan. 29, 2018 at 4:01 p.m.
#2
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,924
Likes: 4,652
NYI:

Ho-Sang, Beauvillier, Greiss, Dal-Colle, CGY 1st 2018, Ladd 50% retained
for
Price 50% retained salary, 3rd round pick, 5th round pick (and a 7th if you'd add one)
Jan. 29, 2018 at 4:23 p.m.
#3
WentWughes
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2016
Posts: 10,772
Likes: 10,342
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
NYI:

Ho-Sang, Beauvillier, Greiss, Dal-Colle, CGY 1st 2018, Ladd 50% retained
for
Price 50% retained salary, 3rd round pick, 5th round pick (and a 7th if you'd add one)


Price 50% yikes, I could see like 20% retained, But 50 i couldn't see happening
wojme liked this.
Jan. 29, 2018 at 4:29 p.m.
#4
Thread Starter
Habs Fan
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 177
Likes: 16
Quoting: KSIxSKULLS
Price 50% yikes, I could see like 20% retained, But 50 i couldn't see happening


i agree 50% is way too Much i dont Think Marc Bergevin is That Bad
Jan. 29, 2018 at 4:42 p.m.
#5
Go Habs Go
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,668
Likes: 4,100
Quoting: dubby
i agree 50% is way too Much i dont Think Marc Bergevin is That Bad


A lot of proposals involve ridiculous scenarios. $1M retention at most, just to get him out of that "scary" double digit range.
Jan. 29, 2018 at 4:44 p.m.
#6
Thread Starter
Habs Fan
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 177
Likes: 16
Quoting: ricochetii
A lot of proposals involve ridiculous scenarios. $1M retention at most, just to get him out of that "scary" double digit range.


Very True
Jan. 29, 2018 at 4:54 p.m.
#7
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,924
Likes: 4,652
Quoting: dubby
i agree 50% is way too Much i dont Think Marc Bergevin is That Bad


it evens out the cap a bit more.
Jan. 29, 2018 at 5:05 p.m.
#8
Lets Go Blues
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 6,813
Likes: 4,363
Just want to add some thoughts from a Blues fan's perspective (I'm with you that none of this is likely to happen):

Price with $2M retained on his extension (and this year)
for
Allen + Thompson + Schmaltz + 2019 1st + 2019 2nd + 2020 2nd

Pacioretty + Benn
for
Sobotka + Gunnarsson + Thompson/Kostin + 2019 2nd

It might not give MTL all the best tools for their rebuild, but some of the pieces (Allen, Sobotka, Gunnarsson) could be flipped for more picks/prospects. Any STL trades this season will be tricky because they have zero cap space. I'm not comfortable losing Robert Thomas in either trade; if he's the fire-starter, I'd rather not go through with it, although he is probably a realistic candidate. I don't really endorse any of these 'win-now' moves for the Blues - looking at their current team structure, I think their window is going to be open for a while, no need to rush into any blockbuster moves. Maybe next year when we have more realistic expectations/ceilings set for some of the younger prospects.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 10:42 a.m.
#9
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,924
Likes: 4,652
Quoting: AK_tune
Just want to add some thoughts from a Blues fan's perspective (I'm with you that none of this is likely to happen):

Price with $2M retained on his extension (and this year)
for
Allen + Thompson + Schmaltz + 2019 1st + 2019 2nd + 2020 2nd

Pacioretty + Benn
for
Sobotka + Gunnarsson + Thompson/Kostin + 2019 2nd

It might not give MTL all the best tools for their rebuild, but some of the pieces (Allen, Sobotka, Gunnarsson) could be flipped for more picks/prospects. Any STL trades this season will be tricky because they have zero cap space. I'm not comfortable losing Robert Thomas in either trade; if he's the fire-starter, I'd rather not go through with it, although he is probably a realistic candidate. I don't really endorse any of these 'win-now' moves for the Blues - looking at their current team structure, I think their window is going to be open for a while, no need to rush into any blockbuster moves. Maybe next year when we have more realistic expectations/ceilings set for some of the younger prospects.


That doesn't look like quite enough for Pacioretty IMO.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 10:44 a.m.
#10
Thread Starter
Habs Fan
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 177
Likes: 16
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
That doesn't look like quite enough for Pacioretty IMO.


Quoting: AK_tune
Just want to add some thoughts from a Blues fan's perspective (I'm with you that none of this is likely to happen):

Price with $2M retained on his extension (and this year)
for
Allen + Thompson + Schmaltz + 2019 1st + 2019 2nd + 2020 2nd

Pacioretty + Benn
for
Sobotka + Gunnarsson + Thompson/Kostin + 2019 2nd

It might not give MTL all the best tools for their rebuild, but some of the pieces (Allen, Sobotka, Gunnarsson) could be flipped for more picks/prospects. Any STL trades this season will be tricky because they have zero cap space. I'm not comfortable losing Robert Thomas in either trade; if he's the fire-starter, I'd rather not go through with it, although he is probably a realistic candidate. I don't really endorse any of these 'win-now' moves for the Blues - looking at their current team structure, I think their window is going to be open for a while, no need to rush into any blockbuster moves. Maybe next year when we have more realistic expectations/ceilings set for some of the younger prospects.


Quoting: rangersandislesfan
That doesn't look like quite enough for Pacioretty IMO.


Agreed
Jan. 30, 2018 at 10:48 a.m.
#11
Thread Starter
Habs Fan
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 177
Likes: 16
i also Dont Think That allen Would be able to Carry the team like price does so the Canadians would crumble with Allen. im not saying that he's a bat player its just that he cant carry a team like Price can.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 12:22 p.m.
#12
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,392
Likes: 2,886
@ricochetii @dubby @rangersandislesfan @AK_tune @KSIxSKULLS

The retained salary would only kick in for the final year of Carey Price's current deal, not the eight year contract extension. Confirmed here, under "Long-Term Outlook": https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/572072

edit: it is also my understanding that teams cannot add salary retention to an extension. In other words, they cannot trade Price this year and retain on his extension. The only way to do this is to trade for Carey Price a year after they dealt him, and then trade him with retained salary to any other team but the team they acquired him from (unless they wait another year).
KSIxSKULLS liked this.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 12:28 p.m.
#13
Lets Go Blues
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 6,813
Likes: 4,363
Quoting: phillyjabroni
@ricochetii @dubby @rangersandislesfan @AK_tune @KSIxSKULLS

The retained salary would only kick in for the final year of Carey Price's current deal, not the eight year contract extension. Confirmed here, under "Long-Term Outlook": https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/572072

edit: it is also my understanding that teams cannot add salary retention to an extension. In other words, they cannot trade Price this year and retain on his extension. The only way to do this is to trade for Carey Price a year after they dealt him, and then trade him with retained salary to any other team but the team they acquired him from (unless they wait another year).


It would make sense that they couldn't retain on the contract until it's active... the weird thing is, from the Blues' side, it shows the salary being retained on the extension https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/571984
Jan. 30, 2018 at 12:46 p.m.
#14
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,392
Likes: 2,886
@AK_tune

https://www.capfriendly.com/forums/thread/110928

Let's wait and find out what the MODs say.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 12:51 p.m.
#15
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,674
Likes: 6,810
I still think people overreact to retention. If someone would actually do the math on the retention of lets say the impact of 3M would have on the habs, you'd see it would be well worth the added return we'd receive.

Even 9.5M is a lot for a team to take on. They'd need to first off give MTL salary back in the form of a player like Andrew Ladd as Raif indicated. That's not a player we want or need and has a lot of term left. Then the team trading for Price would have the leverage that Prices contract runs long and expensive. Giving them ammunition to decrease the return from what Price is probably actaully worth

I've said it once and i'll say it again, If we trade Price, we are rebuilding. Most true rebuilds regardless of whether that team makes the playoffs earlier than expected take anywhere from 3-5 years. That would knock off half of Prices term right there. During that time, we'd be not spending up to the cap anyway. So the cap retention would be insignificant from a hockey Ops point of view. The remaining years would need to be more carefully projected, that's all. Saving money only affects the OWNER. Any owner with deep pockets and understanding of the game would understand that you have to spend money to make money.

If a GM had to worry about 5M in cap retention 5 years from now, he'd have no problem whatsoever. That is plenty of time to manage the teams finances correctly ahead of time, he'd have no problems forecasting that and the situations where a player comes out of nowhere and needs a raise, is dealt with by trading the player. TB did it last year with Drouin. Getting Sergachev. By creating a deficiency in cap space with retention in any Price trade, you are putting the power in the GM's hands. More prospects. More picks. more chances at getting what it is we need to be a good team. If not you are spending less money sure but what is the return you think we're gonna get? TL is going to lose all of of their prospects to get Price at almost full cap? Come on guys, we know how good Price is but the NHL has become a nickel and dime league these days. Want to make the real money? You have to spend money to make money. Instead of getting back money, we're getting prospects and picks.

If you trade Price at 5.5M cap hit (50% ret), even teams with a decent goaltender on them already are wondering if they should give MB a call. Try to move CP at full cap or even with a paltry 1m retention, puts the leverage back into the few teams, who can afford his contract, hands. I say flip the script. Instead get full value back and deal with consequences on you own terms. Buyout, trades, waivers, etc etc etc. there are so many tools that can help you stay under the cap while not taking any less than you deserve in a trade for Price.

I think we've been conditioned to worry so much about the cap that we've essentially removed all chance of taking calculated risks. Risks that could lead to multiple Stanley Cups down the road. All its takes in patience and good accounting/forecasting. (And good drafting/developing obviously)
Jan. 30, 2018 at 1:13 p.m.
#16
WentWughes
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2016
Posts: 10,772
Likes: 10,342
Quoting: F50marco
I still think people overreact to retention. If someone would actually do the math on the retention of lets say the impact of 3M would have on the habs, you'd see it would be well worth the added return we'd receive.

Even 9.5M is a lot for a team to take on. They'd need to first off give MTL salary back in the form of a player like Andrew Ladd as Raif indicated. That's not a player we want or need and has a lot of term left. Then the team trading for Price would have the leverage that Prices contract runs long and expensive. Giving them ammunition to decrease the return from what Price is probably actaully worth

I've said it once and i'll say it again, If we trade Price, we are rebuilding. Most true rebuilds regardless of whether that team makes the playoffs earlier than expected take anywhere from 3-5 years. That would knock off half of Prices term right there. During that time, we'd be not spending up to the cap anyway. So the cap retention would be insignificant from a hockey Ops point of view. The remaining years would need to be more carefully projected, that's all. Saving money only affects the OWNER. Any owner with deep pockets and understanding of the game would understand that you have to spend money to make money.

If a GM had to worry about 5M in cap retention 5 years from now, he'd have no problem whatsoever. That is plenty of time to manage the teams finances correctly ahead of time, he'd have no problems forecasting that and the situations where a player comes out of nowhere and needs a raise, is dealt with by trading the player. TB did it last year with Drouin. Getting Sergachev. By creating a deficiency in cap space with retention in any Price trade, you are putting the power in the GM's hands. More prospects. More picks. more chances at getting what it is we need to be a good team. If not you are spending less money sure but what is the return you think we're gonna get? TL is going to lose all of of their prospects to get Price at almost full cap? Come on guys, we know how good Price is but the NHL has become a nickel and dime league these days. Want to make the real money? You have to spend money to make money. Instead of getting back money, we're getting prospects and picks.

If you trade Price at 5.5M cap hit (50% ret), even teams with a decent goaltender on them already are wondering if they should give MB a call. Try to move CP at full cap or even with a paltry 1m retention, puts the leverage back into the few teams, who can afford his contract, hands. I say flip the script. Instead get full value back and deal with consequences on you own terms. Buyout, trades, waivers, etc etc etc. there are so many tools that can help you stay under the cap while not taking any less than you deserve in a trade for Price.

I think we've been conditioned to worry so much about the cap that we've essentially removed all chance of taking calculated risks. Risks that could lead to multiple Stanley Cups down the road. All its takes in patience and good accounting/forecasting. (And good drafting/developing obviously)


I only read the first paragraph, but 3 million to a Stanley Cup team over 8 years is not a good plan. it's a very big disadvantage
Jan. 30, 2018 at 1:56 p.m.
#17
Go Habs Go
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 10,668
Likes: 4,100
Quoting: phillyjabroni
@ricochetii @dubby @rangersandislesfan @AK_tune @KSIxSKULLS

The retained salary would only kick in for the final year of Carey Price's current deal, not the eight year contract extension. Confirmed here, under "Long-Term Outlook": https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/572072

edit: it is also my understanding that teams cannot add salary retention to an extension. In other words, they cannot trade Price this year and retain on his extension. The only way to do this is to trade for Carey Price a year after they dealt him, and then trade him with retained salary to any other team but the team they acquired him from (unless they wait another year).


That's a tricky one. I can't recall it coming up before.

Quoting: F50marco
I still think people overreact to retention. If someone would actually do the math on the retention of lets say the impact of 3M would have on the habs, you'd see it would be well worth the added return we'd receive.

Even 9.5M is a lot for a team to take on. They'd need to first off give MTL salary back in the form of a player like Andrew Ladd as Raif indicated. That's not a player we want or need and has a lot of term left. Then the team trading for Price would have the leverage that Prices contract runs long and expensive. Giving them ammunition to decrease the return from what Price is probably actaully worth

I've said it once and i'll say it again, If we trade Price, we are rebuilding. Most true rebuilds regardless of whether that team makes the playoffs earlier than expected take anywhere from 3-5 years. That would knock off half of Prices term right there. During that time, we'd be not spending up to the cap anyway. So the cap retention would be insignificant from a hockey Ops point of view. The remaining years would need to be more carefully projected, that's all. Saving money only affects the OWNER. Any owner with deep pockets and understanding of the game would understand that you have to spend money to make money.

If a GM had to worry about 5M in cap retention 5 years from now, he'd have no problem whatsoever. That is plenty of time to manage the teams finances correctly ahead of time, he'd have no problems forecasting that and the situations where a player comes out of nowhere and needs a raise, is dealt with by trading the player. TB did it last year with Drouin. Getting Sergachev. By creating a deficiency in cap space with retention in any Price trade, you are putting the power in the GM's hands. More prospects. More picks. more chances at getting what it is we need to be a good team. If not you are spending less money sure but what is the return you think we're gonna get? TL is going to lose all of of their prospects to get Price at almost full cap? Come on guys, we know how good Price is but the NHL has become a nickel and dime league these days. Want to make the real money? You have to spend money to make money. Instead of getting back money, we're getting prospects and picks.

If you trade Price at 5.5M cap hit (50% ret), even teams with a decent goaltender on them already are wondering if they should give MB a call. Try to move CP at full cap or even with a paltry 1m retention, puts the leverage back into the few teams, who can afford his contract, hands. I say flip the script. Instead get full value back and deal with consequences on you own terms. Buyout, trades, waivers, etc etc etc. there are so many tools that can help you stay under the cap while not taking any less than you deserve in a trade for Price.

I think we've been conditioned to worry so much about the cap that we've essentially removed all chance of taking calculated risks. Risks that could lead to multiple Stanley Cups down the road. All its takes in patience and good accounting/forecasting. (And good drafting/developing obviously)


I've said before elsewhere that a $3M retention should be $24M worth of awesome for the Habs to consider it, so I don't dismiss the possibility under the right circumstances. The usual proposals don't compensate for that benefit at all however. They "expect" it, as part of the cost of moving Price. That's what I was more referring to.

Retaining $1M is enough of a selling point or an acceptable "throw-in", if a trade makes sense or you want to open the market to GMs who find double digit salaries "scary".
It's an ingrained human mental block developed from the use of a 10-base system. Like how people would rather have a $10 bill as opposed to ten $1 bills.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 2:01 p.m.
#18
Black Lives Matter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 29,924
Likes: 4,652
Quoting: phillyjabroni
@ricochetii @dubby @rangersandislesfan @AK_tune @KSIxSKULLS

The retained salary would only kick in for the final year of Carey Price's current deal, not the eight year contract extension. Confirmed here, under "Long-Term Outlook": https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/572072

edit: it is also my understanding that teams cannot add salary retention to an extension. In other words, they cannot trade Price this year and retain on his extension. The only way to do this is to trade for Carey Price a year after they dealt him, and then trade him with retained salary to any other team but the team they acquired him from (unless they wait another year).


you're right, didn't think about that. Then i guess the Habs wouldn't retain, the Isles would have to send more cap back.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 5:20 p.m.
#19
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,674
Likes: 6,810
Quoting: ricochetii
That's a tricky one. I can't recall it coming up before.



I've said before elsewhere that a $3M retention should be $24M worth of awesome for the Habs to consider it, so I don't dismiss the possibility under the right circumstances. The usual proposals don't compensate for that benefit at all however. They "expect" it, as part of the cost of moving Price. That's what I was more referring to.

Retaining $1M is enough of a selling point or an acceptable "throw-in", if a trade makes sense or you want to open the market to GMs who find double digit salaries "scary".
It's an ingrained human mental block developed from the use of a 10-base system. Like how people would rather have a $10 bill as opposed to ten $1 bills.


Yup agreed 100%. Wasn't singling you out but more explaining for those who think Carey price is essentially a cap dump in their eyes.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 5:37 p.m.
#20
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,674
Likes: 6,810
Quoting: KSIxSKULLS
I only read the first paragraph, but 3 million to a Stanley Cup team over 8 years is not a good plan. it's a very big disadvantage


Whats more a detriment though?

Not having 3M in cap space or not having the players to be able to win a cup? I'll take the latter.

Cap space is only useful if you have the right players to use it on. Would MTL of been a cup contender this year if they spent that extra cap space on guys like Trevor Daley, Martin Hanzel and Brian Boyle that they didn't spend on Radulov and Markov? This teams flaws run deeper than that.

But seriously we're talking about 3M here........ In Pittsburgh that's Hagelin. In Nashville that's Emelin, in TB that's Girardi, in Boston its Beleskey, etc etc. We're talking about needing to essentially get rid of a player like that off our hands and replacing with a waiver wire player/prospect/ AHL'er to stay compliant.

Is that really so hard to do? Worst comes to worst, you pay a rebuilding team to take a player off your hands at the cost of a draft pick. Yeah you lost a draft pick but you kept all your stud players.

MTL already has a few things stacked against them as is, in the new NHL a GM has to get crafty to get his team to be a perennial cup contender. I mean whats the other alternative? Keep waiting for that #1 center to drop into our hands? How long have we been waiting again?...... I'd rather worry about how to pay the player than how to get the player in the first place. The latter is quite a bit more difficult than the other...
Jan. 30, 2018 at 6:48 p.m.
#21
LongtimeLeafsufferer
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 60,924
Likes: 23,463
The purpose of trading Price is get long term cap relief. To take retention sorta defeats the purpose for Montreal. Patches is different story. He will return nice pieces, when he is traded.
Blazingbat11 liked this.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 7:34 p.m.
#22
Molson beer is meh
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 3,987
Likes: 1,838
Edited Jan. 30, 2018 at 7:40 p.m.
Quoting: palhal
The purpose of trading Price is get long term cap relief. To take retention sorta defeats the purpose for Montreal. Patches is different story. He will return nice pieces, when he is traded.


I second what @palhal wrote. MTL would never get face value if they traded Price, and I don't think his reduced value is because of the cap hit, but more because teams aren't willing to commit paying a goalie until their 39 years old. So if MTL are not trading him to get full value, it's because they would go for cap relief, so retention makes no sense. unless of course like @ricochetii wrote, $1mil as a "throw-in" seems plausible if the right deal comes around.

@F50marco retaining 50% or even just $3mil per year wouldn't help, it would just handicap any attempt at trying to make the rebuild successful and get a contending team. Let's just say Habs get a mega huge amazing deal for Price at the cost of a lot of salary retention. The return would and should be amazing, thus expediting the "rebuild process". As you wrote, if it takes 3-5 years to get back into the playoffs, that would leave MTL trying to compete for a cup for another 3-5 years afterwards with $3-$5.5mil less in cap space than every other playoff team. and you mentioned guys like Hagelin and Beleskey. No team thinks those are bad contracts when they acquired those players, they just happen! so you can't just say "well MTL just won't sign or acquire players like those!". players don't pan out sometimes, you can't expect it. So now add the possibility of MTL having a contract like Hagelin's ($4mil) on top of the Price's retention 5 years into the rebuild where the Habs could have a decent playoff team. That scenario could leave MTL, at worst, with $9.5mil less cap space than everyone else....

So with the term on Price's contract, retaining a lot of cap makes zero sense.

Also, just to show the value of having a lot of cap space during a rebuild, take Toronto as a perfect example! nobody thought they would be in playoff contention as soon as they are now. Leafs had a lot of cap space, so they used it to acquire Marleau to help them contend now, and many think Toronto have a shot of going really deep into the playoffs. If MTL were to trade Price with a lot of cap retention, they would never be able to do something similar if by any chance the rebuild process is short.
Jan. 30, 2018 at 9:57 p.m.
#23
LongtimeLeafsufferer
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 60,924
Likes: 23,463
You mentioned about the possible Montreal rebuild. Let me mention the Leafs rebuild. Lotta folks think the Leafs sold off a lotta players for picks. Not true. What the Leafs did right was to rid themselves of two players that weren't performing to their salary......Kessel and Phaneuf. Kessel was making 8m and the Leafs thought to was better to trade him for....just Kapanen and last pick the first round. Leafs retained 1.2m, so Kessel was actually a 6.8m cap dump. Doesn't matter that Kessel has played well and sometimes great in Pittsburg, he wasn't in Toronto, so it was the Leafs job to spend that 6.8m wisely.
Phaneuf was making 7m long term. Leafs took back equally bad salary short term, but got long term cap relief. The Leafs actually just got a second rounder and a minor leaguer for Phanuef. But what the Leafs really wanted to spend 7m a few years later for better players.
If not Price, Montreal has the decision about Weber. As good as player Weber is, Montreal is going through the scenario if we could rid ourselves of Weber long term 7.6m contract....with no retention, and even if we got nothing in return, could we spend that 7.6m long term than Weber. Leafs did something similar with two players, maybe Montreal is thinking the same thing with their top two salaries.
Jan. 31, 2018 at 12:25 a.m.
#24
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,674
Likes: 6,810
@Blazingbat11

**Long post alert**

In every scenario there is risk. You have to gauge it and decide from there. You mentioned Toronto but that is really an unfair example. Shanahan came in 14-15 and so far is in year 3 of his tear down rebuild and they are playoff capable yes but no one is taking them to win the cup this year over teams like TB. Plus you are also cherry picking a team that won one of the best lottery picks in recent history. Matthews automatically jump started that rebuild an extra year minimum. That easily could of been Nugent-Hopkins, would they be where they are now with Nuge? If the Habs were lucky enough to land a generational talent within 2 years of the rebuild, yeah I think we can move things forward a little but that is wishful thinking and one I'll gladly deal with if it should arise. Assuming the law of averages, it won't be as fast for the Habs. Plus making the playoffs in a rebuild is simply a bonus. Leafs didnt' sit Matthews last year because they wanted to tank cuz they were in a playoff spot because they are technically in a rebuild. They went with it but they didn't lose track of the main goal which is to continue to surround the core with better players each year. That takes time. MTL was a playoff team for years but not even us Habs fans were confident of the teams ability to compete and win in any given year. We just were hoping for the best and hoping for Price pulling miracles out his arse.

Unfortunately CF only goes so far into the future on the AGM's so I can't show you how it would be possible but for all the worst case scenarios you mentioned, how many of them are "workable"? How workable is it to get top end talent, let alone top end centers? MTL has been trying for what 20+ years now....... Taking risks lends its hand to getting smacked in the face but its also has the chance to completely change a teams destiny. The only difference is this isn't a roll of the dice in a casino game. This is a calculated risk where you are given multiple shots to correct any future wrong doings and get things where they need to be as they progress.

The part that needs to be clarified though is what the return for Price would be with no retention vs with up to 50% retention. Until that is clear, we're only assuming but we may have different assumptions on that, which is causing such major differing opinions on the matter between us two. Yeah if it only gets us a 2nd rounder and a decent prospect more, than I am fully against it also. What if it brought back an extra 1st rounder and a top notch center prospect? (on top of what we would get for him without retention) Than frankly there is no excuse to not take it. We're more worried about pinching pennies than actually icing a team capable of winning the cup. Let the manager worry about the cap. Thats what's he's paid for and has an arsenal of analysts at his side to help do. To find solutions. The solutions to adding top end talent is simple but extremely hard to do. Rebuilding isn't about adding through free agency. Its about cultivating your own top end players and that takes time. Simply from draft to RFA status is 3 years right there and that would only apply to instant superstars.

I've also went into depth a lot about how long players take to get to 6M+ type contracts generally. The players you're drafting this year 17-18, most times won't be 6M+ worthy for another 5-7 years MINIMUM. Barring the occasional superstar. So not being able to afford these prospects isn't the problem. Its not being able to add that "one piece" in free agency like a Marleau in any one given year that has you up in arms. Is Marleau really going to make the Leafs win a cup? I actually think he is more of a detriment to their cap than a benefit. 6.6M for 3 years when their more pressing need was on defense and the big raises their core players are going to be getting was unwise IMO. As for the Beleskey and Hagelin comment, I simply meant not to delve into free agency unwisely or frankly on any player more than 2M a year. Always keeping in mind that we won't have that luxury of 5M in cap space in the final 3 years, of my example, of Price's contract. So maybe rather than risking on a UFA, ere on the side of caution. Of course bad signings happen! Whats harder to do though? Get rid of Beleskeys contract or get a #1 center? Contracts can be moved/bought out/ etc. TALENT CANNOT JUST BE ADDED AT WILL. Thats why I say, make the difficult decision about how are we going to stay under the cap and NOT how are we going to acquire top end talent. There are plenty of tools at a GM's disposal to "get rid" of cap. There is no magic potion to have a #1 center drop into your lap.

Good teams don't add core pieces through free agency. They draft them or trade for them while they're still young. All I'm saying is sacrifice not being able to add that "one piece" in free agency for 8 years (5 of which are mostly rebuilding anyway) if the return potentially gets you an extra 1st and a top notch center prospect on top of what we would get for him without retention. A team like Nashville was able to get to the cup final without needing to spend every dollar they had and made almost no major free agent signings within the 2-3 years previous to last year either. So whats the problem?

It can be done. It just needs to be done with precision and calculated risks. Something a guy like MB doesn't seem to understand. Can it not work too? Absolutely. Who knows maybe all those picks never pan out and are all garbage players......but then you won't have to be worrying about cap now will you and frankly will the Habs be realistically capable of winning a cup while Prices contract is at 10.5M and no potential #1 in sight? I honestly don't think so.

The only MAJOR downfall that you are pointing out is that we'll get to year 5,6,7,8 of Price's contract and not have enough cap to sign someone, right? So sacrifice someone then!!!! Brendan Gallagher gone for draft picks. Other 3-5M cap hit players who are on the semi-decline but still hold decent value get moved if necessary. See the difference between having the power to choose who you HAVE to get rid of to make the cap work? This logic can't be applied to talent. Not to mention that forcing these Gallagher type trades means restocking your cupboards with more picks and prospects. You need as many shots at landing young talent as possible and the best way to do that is to draft and trade for young prospects. Trading Price for a bounty of picks and prospects only increases those odds.

Finally, this is a rebuild. Not a retool/restart. Retools/Restarts can take as little as 1 year to fully do. All depends on what you can do in that year. Rebuilds tend to take a long time regardless of whether the team was able to overacheive and make the playoffs or not. Just making the playoffs isn't good enough. You need to have a team that makes the playoffs in whichever position they finish in but once there, inspires confidence that they can ACTUALLY win. The latter takes years to achieve. Any playoff births in between are just gravy. MTL's playoffs these past 5 years have for the most part been smoke and mirrors.

Either way Blazing, we've been at this for a while now. I know your opinion on it and you know mine. You are the one who is saying definitively that it makes zero sense. Im saying that its simply a possibility that could work and that the potential reward could outweigh the negative risk as MTL tends to not be able to spend that money on top end talent in places like free agency anyway. Might as well sacrifice it now for future gain.
Jan. 31, 2018 at 12:33 a.m.
#25
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,674
Likes: 6,810
Quoting: palhal
You mentioned about the possible Montreal rebuild. Let me mention the Leafs rebuild. Lotta folks think the Leafs sold off a lotta players for picks. Not true. What the Leafs did right was to rid themselves of two players that weren't performing to their salary......Kessel and Phaneuf. Kessel was making 8m and the Leafs thought to was better to trade him for....just Kapanen and last pick the first round. Leafs retained 1.2m, so Kessel was actually a 6.8m cap dump. Doesn't matter that Kessel has played well and sometimes great in Pittsburg, he wasn't in Toronto, so it was the Leafs job to spend that 6.8m wisely.
Phaneuf was making 7m long term. Leafs took back equally bad salary short term, but got long term cap relief. The Leafs actually just got a second rounder and a minor leaguer for Phanuef. But what the Leafs really wanted to spend 7m a few years later for better players.
If not Price, Montreal has the decision about Weber. As good as player Weber is, Montreal is going through the scenario if we could rid ourselves of Weber long term 7.6m contract....with no retention, and even if we got nothing in return, could we spend that 7.6m long term than Weber. Leafs did something similar with two players, maybe Montreal is thinking the same thing with their top two salaries.


I get the point palhal but the players you mentioned are not in the same category as Price and Weber. If anything CP and Weber are the only shining lights on the team where as Phaneuf and Kessel were being blamed for the lack results. Its the lack of talent that they have in front of them. That's the difference.

Spend more wisely? That is a nice luxury to have but for a team that goes into free agency and adds, Alzner, Gionta, Cammalleri, Spacek, etc because that's all they can get, we should worry less spending money more wisely and more about adding talent like Matthews, Marner and Nylander which is really what I'm referring to. If those players cam at the cost of Price and Weber I'd have no problem moving them but the problem is not knowing if your going to draft them or not.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll