Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Would you?
#21
(2017-01-10, 10:17 PM)Scriptor Wrote:
(2017-01-10, 09:25 PM)SeanCDNMTL Wrote:
(2017-01-10, 09:14 PM)bchippie Wrote:
(2017-01-10, 07:30 PM)SeanCDNMTL Wrote: Did anyone not read what I wrote????

COYLE WEARS #3!!!! He is a bloody forward. Forwards dont wear #3!!!!! Come on, thats just annoying
Wild have been trying to trade him but nobody wants such a weirdo
Wink

That is weird for a forward. Mind you 4 looked pretty good on Beliveau, not so good on Hall though.

Well that's 4, but #3!? Come on!!!!!! Silly
He,s wearing a D number to show he is conscious about improving his defensive play Wink

Well find us a player who wear 99 then and then we'll talk :Silly  lol
Reply
Thanks given by:
#22
(2017-01-11, 04:06 AM)OldSchool Wrote: Coyle is a good, underrated player. Then this thread came along and now he's overrated.

lol.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#23
I'm not even sure I would do Gallagher for Coyle straight up. Too early to tell who the better player is. I'm not sure I'm willing to give up someone I know for someone I don't. Last year Montreal would have laughed at Minny if they offered Coyle to get Gallagher. Now this year it's the opposite. And if we have strength at RW, why mess with that? IMO if we lose Gallagher our strength falls heavily. Thankfully Radulov worked out great (who knows if he even resigns with us?).

I'd rather keep who we have and try and fill the 2nd C spot another way. Hopefully it involves Plekanec and a pick.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#24
(2017-01-11, 12:27 PM)Habfan Wrote: I'm not even sure I would do Gallagher for Coyle straight up.  Too early to tell who the better player is.  I'm not sure I'm willing to give up someone I know for someone I don't.  Last year Montreal would have laughed at Minny if they offered Coyle to get Gallagher.  Now this year it's the opposite.  And if we have strength at RW, why mess with that?  IMO if we lose Gallagher our strength falls heavily.  Thankfully Radulov worked out great (who knows if he even resigns with us?).  

I'd rather keep who we have and try and fill the 2nd C spot another way.  Hopefully it involves Plekanec and a pick.

So would I. We'd all be crazy not to want that.

I just doubt Plekanec and a pick gets us a coveted 2nd line C that amounts to a younger version of Plekanec with more offensive upside. I think that we need to give more for that, especially considering the Cap hit that comes with Plekanec. Either that or we agree to take on a bad contract in exchange and that doesn't help at all.

In the end, it's Bergevin's job to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Still, looking at a trade as a way to fleece your trading partner and become elite in the process at almost no cost is likely not a feasible reality.

Fans don't want to lose anything worthwhile from the current roster, even if it means getting something worthwhile at another position and addressing a need that we have repeatedly been unable to fill, either on the trade font or from within the organization via the draft (Finishing 3rd worst in the league is the only way we got Galchenyuk as a top-6 C and that may well have been because he had been injured and EDM preferred the flash of Yakupov).

It's the cry of the wild like when Subban was traded as soon as there is a trade proposal involving a quality player currently on our roster. People tend to just look at the loss and not what can be filled as a need in return.

Then, fans are also extremely reluctant to trade a blue chip prospect and pick(s), even if it's for a young, blue chip NHLer with remaining upside on top of their already confirmed production. It takes balls to trade an Iginla for a Nieuwendyk like Gainey did in Dallas. It also gives you a better chance to win a Cup in the short term, if ever. There are never any guarantees that blue chip prospects become blue chip NHLers. Plenty of Alexandre Daigle, Yakupov and Wickenheiser type players who never live up to lofty expectations, for whatever reason.

Then there's the status quo which doesn't guarantee that players coming up through the system will be ready in time for the remaining quality veterans at the NHL level to combine with them to form a winning team. Those two young Ds are now ready to be a quality top pairing D and a quality 2nd pairing D, but just in time for the matching top pairing veteran D and 2nd pairing veteran D to have moved on, signing elsewhere as a UFA, retiring or just declining, etc. 

The problem remains the same because development is not an exact science and the draft is a crap shoot.

I'm not saying one approach is better than another or, even, the status quo. 

While it's perhaps not clear who is better or will be better in the end out of Gallagher and Coyle, the latter can help you as a large-bodied, 2nd line C, a position that needs to be filled and is difficult to fill. Gallagher can't and will never help you there.

Even if Coyle is a little less good than Gallagher, he successfully fills a role on your team that is vital and would've remained an important hole in your lineup otherwise.

At RW, with Gallagher's departure, assuming Bergevin re-signs Radulov, you have Radulov for the 1st line and Shaw and McCaron for the 2nd and 3rd lines, one way or the other, plus you have Nikita Scherbak developing to be a top 6 RW.

This year, I think we'd be stuck with Plekanec in a 3rd line C role. Hopefully, with only one year remaining in his contract, he can move on to another team in the offseason (expansion draft, trade for picks, whatever). Acquiring Coyle in exchange for Gallagher and a little more if required (not Julssen and a 1st round pick), if that's doable would leave this lineup and the ensuing depth, heading into the playoffs:

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Radulov
Lehkonen - Coyle - McCarron
Danault - Plekanec - Shaw
Byron - Mitchell - Flynn

Depth would leave you Carr and, eventually, Hudon at LW and Scherbak and Andrighetto at RW, with Danault able to play C in a pinch for lines 1-3 and Flynn able to play C for lines 3-4.

I see a lineup with more size and tenacity spread out and 4 lines that fight for the puck with an ability to play 200 feet of hockey in the playoffs.

More importantly, I see players in the right seat with the arrival of a genuine 2nd line C.

As much as I love Gallagher, I don't see anything else currently in the lineup of enough quality that can be packaged to get us a quality 2nd line C and that we can replace from what we currently have in the system.

Coyle might not be the answer either. I just don't see many options netting us a quality 2nd line C and not weakening us too much up front at another position by trading NHL roster players...
Reply
Thanks given by:
#25
would you.....actually trade Pleks this season?

If we are serious about a cup run, do we not need a shut down C no matter the cap cost this season? I mean if it stop MB from getting the 1 incredible pc we need to put us over the top, or if it stops us from signing ppl we need to...ok I can see the cap hit being a reason for a trade. But outside of that, this season, do we really need to get Pleks off this roster if we want to go deep.

I wouldn't. But I would look into it for the off season...if we need the cap space. If not just let him ride into the sunset with one more year. It's not like we have to feel bad for Molson paying this guy. As a fan, the $ he makes is only an issue if it restricts our GM from making moves to make the team better.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#26
If we remove our rose-tinted glasses because we are in love with Plekanec, he is no longer the stalwart defensive player you are alluding to. His F/O prowess isn't there, his defensive coverage is off at times, he lacks consistency when it comes to being physically involve for one-on-one battles. Mitchell can do the defensive job that Plekanec can do for much less, IMO. Flynn is more physically involved at a mere fraction of the cost.

Without the offensive upside, Plekanec is not worth much more than 2M, at best. In fact, he becomes a specialist you can get for 1,5 Million or so.

At this stage, Plekanec is a Dominic Moore type player, minus the physical side. Good to have at the right price and willing to play the role he is given. I don't think that,s the case tight now. Next year will be worse because that 6 Million Cap hit can limit Bergevin's options both in the offseason and during the season.

Plekanec's final (it better be with the Habs) contract is an albatross around the team's neck.

Like the guy, think he can still play a useful, although more limited role (if he wants to) in this season's playoffs but, the Cap price tag going forward for next year is a definite no-no, especially for a team that is/should be tweaking it's lineup for the final season of Price's contract!

4 Million too much, IMO, on Plekanec's contract, goes a long way in forming a better lineup. I think the overpayment on the LD, Emelin, is much more important to the Habs than the overpayment on Plekanec, for example.

So long... and thanks for all the fish, Tomas...

I certainly hope, if he doesn't play tonight because of the flu, and the team doesn't have a good game, that people won't point to this as an example of Plekanec's worth to the team... The team is already severely depleted at C...
Reply
Thanks given by:
#27
(2017-01-11, 01:59 PM)Haba-daba-do Wrote: would you.....actually trade Pleks this season?

If we are serious about a cup run, do we not need a shut down C no matter the cap cost this season? I mean if it stop MB from getting the 1 incredible pc we need to put us over the top, or if it stops us from signing ppl we need to...ok I can see the cap hit being a reason for a trade. But outside of that, this season, do we really need to get Pleks off this roster if we want to go deep.

I wouldn't. But I would look into it for the off season...if we need the cap space. If not just let him ride into the sunset with one more year. It's not like we have to feel bad for Molson paying this guy. As a fan, the $ he makes is only an issue if it restricts our GM from making moves to make the team better.

i would not trade him this season, we need him. Next season If I couldn't trade him, I'd buy him out.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#28
(2017-01-11, 02:44 PM)bchippie Wrote:
(2017-01-11, 01:59 PM)Haba-daba-do Wrote: would you.....actually trade Pleks this season?

If we are serious about a cup run, do we not need a shut down C no matter the cap cost this season?  I mean if it stop MB from getting the 1 incredible pc we need to put us over the top, or if it stops us from signing ppl we need to...ok I can see the cap hit being a reason for a trade.  But outside of that, this season, do we really need to get Pleks off this roster if we want to go deep.

I wouldn't.  But I would look into it for the off season...if we need the cap space.  If not just let him ride into the sunset with one more year.  It's not like we have to feel bad for Molson paying this guy.  As a fan, the $ he makes is only an issue if it restricts our GM from making moves to make the team better.

i would not trade him this season, we need him. Next season If I couldn't trade him, I'd buy him out.
2 Million for two years on Plekanec (buyout) is nothing if you can find a younger replacement as a genuine 2nd line C for 4 Million or less Cap hit during those two years.

I see know problem with keeping Plekanec for this playoff run either, in the appropriate role that would depend on whether bergevin pulls off a deal for that genuine 2nd line C at the deadline.

IMO, Plekanec has fallen behind Danault as a C. If Bergevin were to have added a genuine 2nd line C at the deadline, Plekanec would fall to 4th line C, unless, because the team does have a weakness at LW, Danault or Plekanec were transferred to LW for the 3rd line:

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Radulov
Lehkonen - ????? - Gallagher/Shaw/McCarron
Danault/Byron - Plekanec/Danault - Gallagher/Shaw/McCarron
Danault/Byron/Plekanec/Carr/Mitchell/Flynn - McCarronPlekanec/Danault/Mitchell/Flynn - Mitchell/Flynn/Scherbak
Reply
Thanks given by:
#29
We all Know what Gallagher brings: leadership, a good work ethic, character and a player who can work within the system. We also know what he doesn't bring and that is size.
We know that Coyle brings size, but is he the type of player that MB feels can make the Habs a better team and worth trading Gallagher + for?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#30
(2017-01-11, 02:55 PM)HIGGINSFAN Wrote: We all Know what Gallagher brings: leadership, a good work ethic, character and a player who can work within the system.  We also know what he doesn't bring and that is size.
We know that Coyle brings size, but is he the type of player that MB feels can make the Habs a better team and worth trading Gallagher + for?

I really don't know, to be honest. The point is that there are sometimes possible deals that we don't key in on and that's why I believe there is always a possibility for Bergevin to do a genuine hockey trade at the deadline that improves the team(s) short and longer term, even if it saddens us to lose a player we might be fond of.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#31
(2017-01-11, 02:53 PM)Scriptor Wrote:
(2017-01-11, 02:44 PM)bchippie Wrote:
(2017-01-11, 01:59 PM)Haba-daba-do Wrote: would you.....actually trade Pleks this season?

If we are serious about a cup run, do we not need a shut down C no matter the cap cost this season?  I mean if it stop MB from getting the 1 incredible pc we need to put us over the top, or if it stops us from signing ppl we need to...ok I can see the cap hit being a reason for a trade.  But outside of that, this season, do we really need to get Pleks off this roster if we want to go deep.

I wouldn't.  But I would look into it for the off season...if we need the cap space.  If not just let him ride into the sunset with one more year.  It's not like we have to feel bad for Molson paying this guy.  As a fan, the $ he makes is only an issue if it restricts our GM from making moves to make the team better.

i would not trade him this season, we need him. Next season If I couldn't trade him, I'd buy him out.
2 Million for two years on Plekanec (buyout) is nothing if you can find a younger replacement as a genuine 2nd line C for 4 Million or less Cap hit during those two years.

I see know problem with keeping Plekanec for this playoff run either, in the appropriate role that would depend on whether bergevin pulls off a deal for that genuine 2nd line C at the deadline.

IMO, Plekanec has fallen behind Danault as a C. If Bergevin were to have added a genuine 2nd line C at the deadline, Plekanec would fall to 4th line C, unless, because the team does have a weakness at LW, Danault or Plekanec were transferred to LW for the 3rd line:

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Radulov
Lehkonen - ????? - Gallagher/Shaw/McCarron
Danault/Byron - Plekanec/Danault - Gallagher/Shaw/McCarron
Danault/Byron/Plekanec/Carr/Mitchell/Flynn - McCarronPlekanec/Danault/Mitchell/Flynn - Mitchell/Flynn/Scherbak

scriptor...how is it $2M for 2 years on the buyout? Isn't it half the cap at 2X the years left....so $3M for 2 yrs?

As for buyout, McC and Dan would have to really have cemented their spots.

Chuck
Dan
McC
Mitch

Flynn, Pleks, DD gone....that's a huge chuck of our injury reserve. Maybe too risky. If we don't need cap space next year, why not just keep Pleks?

Chuck
Dan
Pleks
Mcc (with Mitch at wing)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#32
It's 2/3 of the remaining contract spread out over twice the years left. i.e; 6M for 1 year = 4M over two years, or 2M X 2years. 12M over two years (had he been bought out at start of season this year) = 8 Million over 4 years or 2M X 4 years.

Your calculations assume that we can't add another C in the offseason, via trade or on the UFA market, or as an offer on a RFA (highly unlikely, of course).

If Bergevin can get a younger, talented, 2nd line C, your C line is as follows:

Chuck
????
Danault
McCaron

Mitchell, Flynn

Under that scenario, McCarron likely moves to RW and the C line becomes:

Chuck
????
Danault
Mitchell

Flynn

That leaves plenty of depth in case of injuries, with Danult likely able to step in short to medium term as a 2nd line C and McCarron covering for Danault as 3rd line C.

Mitchell gets injured, either McCarron or Flynn can cover for him.

Danault gets injured, McCarron can step in or, at worse, Mitchell can.

There is zero room for Plekanec -- definitely not at 6 Million -- considering what he brings can be provided by other players already on the roster, never mind in the system.

The team would need to add a talented, 2nd line C to remain deep enough for the top-6 (with Danault, next year) ready to step in as a 2nd line C to cover in case of injuries.

Plekanec, as a buoy in case of injury is too expensive and prevents Bergevin from having the Cap latitude to make a move that betters the team over keeping Plekanec.

It's my opinion but, you've got homers on l'Antichambre who are still in love with Plekanec... Maybe they are right and I'm just blind as hell.

Can Montreal survive with Plekanec in the lineup next season? Sure, if making the playoffs is your sole objective. Can Montreal ice the best team possible to hope to win a Cup with Plekanec using up 6 Million of Cap room next season? Not likely.

That's where my fondness of a player disappears. Make playoffs with player I like but, not make it to conference final or, lose player i like but, spend the resources to improve the team and help perhaps make it to conference finals with a chance at winning the 4 of 7 series that gives us that elusive Cup (25th!)...

I think the choice is easy.

That's why I can now contemplate the idea that Gallagher, whom, in the past, I would have cut my arm off before I traded him, may well be the only valuable enough piece to trade while being able to replace him in the lineup (the trade for Shaw, the addition of Radulov and the emergence of McCarron all make that possible).

Sometimes, a veteran player is more in a position of letting a younger player take his rightful place on the team than in a position to continue helping the team as he should. That's the case with Plekanec and, to an even greater degree, Desharnais.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#33
Remeber flynn is a ufa. I think ths play of the kids dictate if flynn gets resigned
Reply
Thanks given by:
#34
Flynn is inconsequential for the Cap. The decision will be linked to whether having him takes time away from a more deserving youngster or not.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#35
Thats what I said lol
Reply
Thanks given by:
#36
I'm agreeing with you, not arguing.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#37
Happy
Reply
Thanks given by:
#38
Happy thought u didn't get what I was saying
Reply
Thanks given by:
#39
I was just looking at the Pred's and Fisher is going to be an UFA. If the Preds become sellers IMO that would be a great option to try and deal Pleks. I just wonder if the Preds would be interested. They would get a younger guy that fills in for the 2nd line nicely and has potential to be a great 2nd line player. They shouldn't care about the added salary cap hit and would probably like it, although I think they would be paying more in actual salary. I think Fisher would be a like-for-like replacement to Pleks and he would come off the books at the end of the year freeing up money for Chucky and Radulov, and another top 4 Dman. And if he works out he'd be a good option to resign cheap for another year.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#40
habfan...Fischer is one of those Preds, like Weber, that IS the team and would never be traded or resigned

oh never mind.... Happy
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)