SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

F50marco

Member Since
May 29, 2015
Favourite Team
Montreal Canadiens
Forum Posts
19506
Posts per Day
6.1
Forum: Armchair-GM10 hours ago
Thread: cantadians
Its important to remember that cap space isn't an issue until its needed so depending on what the Habs do in free agency, which is likely nothing of major significance, there is not going to be a need for cap space any time soon. So why do this exactly? The whole point of moving cap dumps with 1sts is because in order to sign/ trade for big expensive names, you need to create cap space. MTL isn't the most desirable place to play for most UFA's so chances are they aren't going to add a lot of big names that way. By trade? Who would they realistically add making more than what Suzuki makes that isn't in the mid 30's?? I don't see it. All the guys they're targeting are mid range cap hits and any prospect they have won't need a huge raise anytime soon.

The value is probably spot on, it would take a 1st each to move both guys at current cap hits but the Habs have so little reason to do so. Both guys despite being really bad this year are at the very least "character guys" that their teammates love and respect. So they aint hurting the Habs development. Just their standings but they are rebuilding so that's a good thing, I guess.

ON THE FLIPSIDE, If the Habs land Celebrini this year and then entice a big name in free agency to sign here (Stamkos, Marchessault, etc) moving the Habs playoff expectations drastically closer, I think I would make a concerted effort to move out one of those two at just about all costs. Buy out being the most likely if a 50% retention trade offer wasn't enough to get someone to bite. While the Habs don't need cap space necessarily, they are starting to get to the point of needing roster spot flexibility. Gally and Anderson are essentially taking up the same 4th line RW spot and for a team looking to finally contend and that may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Back to reality, I think Anderson will be moved next offseason (when they have more retention slots available) with significant retention for little to no return. Its clear as day he does not fit this team and this coach anymore and not giving in to moving him out with incentives is only hurting your team more when other youngsters are not getting ice time as a result. Sometimes paying to get rid of someone is a necessary move.
As for Gallagher, there is no move to be made there, not even with max retention. Either he rides into the sunset with MTL as a 4th liner for the remainder of his contract or he gets bought out at some point. My gut is they keep him as long as he provides <em>some</em> value to the team. Then in the final year of his contract is bought out unless they really aren't lacking for cap space and don't mind keeping him around the team to finish it out. Also he has a high chance of being LTIRetired at some point here too so that could be valuable to the Habs looking to exceed the cap ceiling in a playoff run.
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 3:59 p.m.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 8 at 8:54 p.m.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 7 at 3:03 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mokumboi</b></div><div>And what of the team(s?) that wasn't able to pick up one of those options? You covered all the finites except supply. Which it could be argued is the most important finite of all in such a scenario, economically speaking.

We're not talking about two 1sts in value more. We're talking about one or two rounds higher on one pick. I'm pretty confident they could hold out just a little bit longer. It's not like the quick trigger helped their return any.</div></div>

I mean, what, moving a 4th to a 3rd instead? Maybe instead of both picks, one 2nd was given instead? Yeah I guess. In the grand scheme of things its small bananas with some risk. Considering there is also a chance they get less then they got because they are the ones that are desperate. Yeah they could have gotten slightly better. They also could have gotten even worse. They hedged their bet early and didn't risk losing him for a 5th rounder right before the deadline when Florida says take it or leave it. Which they would have had to take no questions asked.

Tarasenko's NMC makes it impossible to know. For all we know, Florida was the only team he wanted to go to that also wanted him. (And potentially could fit him in under the cap). I can only guess that the reason Ott moved him asap was because the teams that fit all the criterion, I previously mentioned was equal to 1. Maybe 2.

There was definitely more supply than there were Tarasenko destination options. Once again based on what we can assume was a pretty specific amount of teams he'd go to.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 6 at 12:37 p.m.
Thread: jonh514
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 26 at 1:48 p.m.
Thread: All Aboard
Pettersson mock trades can't even realistically happen yet IMHO. We're just throwing random values at the wall and seeing what sticks amongst us fans but there are too many variables that are dependent on factors we don't officially know yet.

Pettersson falls into two categories: either he is a player you never trade because its impossible to replace him through trade and even drafting another Petey is almost impossible OR you know he isn't resigning and you are forced to sell for less that true value, giving other teams a bit of an edge in negotiations. (This is under the assumption there is no scenario where Vancouver sits EP out until he signs which i don't think they would)

If Van can't resign him, what incentive do teams have to pay top dollar? On the flipside, if Van can resign him and its simply an ongoing negotiation, then the value to acquire is probably higher than would make reasonable sense for any team to give up.

The only caveat is if another team has a similar player in a similar situation and swapping both players would solve all parties involved, problems. Rare but could happen.

So we can discuss what we think his value is but its a pretty big pendulum swing based on things we don't even know for sure yet.

As for the trade, I'd be on board to do this from a MTL perspective ONLY if we know what EP's contract demands are first. If we go into it, having to start negotiations AFTER the trade, we basically have to sign him to whatever he wants and have zero leverage. See Bergevin's Josh Anderson trade for an example of how NOT to do negotiations.