|
Post by HTL on Aug 21, 2024 18:22:28 GMT
Agreed. I'm pretty much done with the rebuild. Time to start adding some pieces and take a run at this thing. Playoffs are a lot more fun when your team is in it.
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Aug 21, 2024 18:29:05 GMT
Unlikely monahan though, Laine is a few years younger and we are a few years further along. I think Hughes likely sees it in one of two scenarios: 1) he's a short term band-aid solution to give us a chance to make the playoffs until Demidov comes over or 2) he bounces back & we resign him to a 5-6 year deal just as we enter our window to compete. The cost was fair so I suspect Hughes is willing to roll the dice & see what happens. Why does every significant contract have to match up with the so called long term compete window? A team's core evolves, and if the player demonstrates sufficient competency and fits with the culture of the team, then match that compete window. Mgmt. clearly feels Suzuki, Caufield, Slaf, Guhle have done that, and Laine is on trial - could you not ask the same questions on Dach, Newhook, Matheson, and where are we going with Montembault? If you want to see players brought in that will help us for a future Cup run beyond our draft and develop prospects - then identify alternatives Askarov?, McGroarty?, Mercer? Trade for RFA's or similar prospects and immediately lock them up on limited bodies of work for 3 years like Newhook and Dach? Marner, Draitsatl, which future free agents? Where was HuGo going to use the 2025 cap space he had? There weren't any UFA's that either wanted to sign here (Marchessault, Stamkos, Lindholm, Montour etc.) that really would fit your window. I'm at a loss as to why you have to question the contract vision and not just enjoy the ride, and potential upside / leadership contributions to the team. If Laine fails, like I have said before, then the buyout cap hit in 2026 and 2027 is $2.4M - I see many other contenders with dead cap $ more than that, so it's hardly a downside hinderance. I for one, don't need the answers on where Laine will be at the end of his 2 year contract. I am going to enjoy watching the team evolve and let the results dictate the future. If Laine walks then just like Philip Danault vs. Brendan Gallagher, one hopes we make the right decision (have enough replacement depth - Demidov etc.), and you can't keep everyone under the cap system. So far for me HuGo has stayed pretty true to their vision - they want players that want to be here. I can live with that cultural fit vs. aligning contracts to the compete window.
It's one thing to put a team together that is as good as possible now, but that's how you run a team for a one-and-done tournament like the Olympics. Hey, I fully agree that Laine is going to be more exciting and productive than cap space for the coming season, you don't have to convince me about that. But to be honest, I'm not here to see a few highlight-reel goals and to miss the playoffs by a few fewer points than we otherwise would have. We've been waiting over 30 years for a Stanley Cup, and to me, that's the ultimate goal. Every move we make should be with the intent of increasing our chances of winning the Cup. Not all moves will have immediate impact, but there should be rationale for making them. I'll reiterate that I'm not debating that adding Laine helps our team. We are a much better team with him in our line-up than if we were to distribute those minutes to Gallagher, Armia, and Roy. But we need to consider that we're a better team for two years where we're not expected to challenge for a Cup. So I can't ignore where that leaves us when we are a contender. We spent a decade of Marc Bergevin tinkering to produce an acceptable but not fantastic product without any vision for how he was going to get to a Cup, and while Gorton and Hughes have shown they have much better vision overall, my point is just that I'm not clear how the Laine move projects. I'm not saying there isn't a plan here, just that it's not clear to me. As I said, best-case scenario for us is that he blows up for 40+ goals again, but if that happens, he's going to cost us big time on a long-term deal. You mentioned other UFAs or players, but if we were to have gone out two days ago and acquired Mitch Marner for a 7th round pick instead of making that Laine trade, then re-signed him to a one-year contract extension for 9M through 2025-26, I'd be asking the same questions of what exactly that move does for our future. Laine at 5 years, 7M AAV makes sense to me. Laine at 2 years, 8.7M makes less sense to me given the position this team is in re-building its roster. Absolutely, it makes the team more fun to watch next year, but I want to know where this is going to lead us down the line. If we're trading him for another draft pick in two years, it hasn't really put us that much further ahead. If we're letting him walk, we have nothing to show when it matters. If we re-sign him for 7-8 years at 9-10M AAV, then it's committing a lot of money longterm to this player.
The other thing to consider here is opportunity cost. We lost nothing asset-wise in this trade, but we did give up 17.4M in cap space over the next two years. We're technically now about 2-3M over the cap, with the goal to get under in the summer and put Price on LTIR in-season for reasons discussed before. It can be done, but it's not like we were sitting on 30M of cap space like some other teams. We made a conscious decision to use our cap space on Laine, which means we gave up the opportunity to use that space elsewhere. What if another team came calling in a few weeks to take a player like Monahan off their hands and gave us a 1st rounder to give up 5-6M in cap space for one year only? What if Rantanen or Draisaitl indicated to us that they want to come here next summer but they want a 6-7 year deal at 10M AAV and you can no longer afford them. I'm not saying any of this will happen, but this type of alternative needs to be factored in when assessing the Laine deal. This isn't Laine vs. nothing the way it would have been in a non-cap world. GMs pay a lot right now to get cap space, so 17.4M of cap room has value in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by habulator on Aug 21, 2024 20:17:14 GMT
Unlikely monahan though, Laine is a few years younger and we are a few years further along. I think Hughes likely sees it in one of two scenarios: 1) he's a short term band-aid solution to give us a chance to make the playoffs until Demidov comes over or 2) he bounces back & we resign him to a 5-6 year deal just as we enter our window to compete. The cost was fair so I suspect Hughes is willing to roll the dice & see what happens. Why does every significant contract have to match up with the so called long term compete window? A team's core evolves, and if the player demonstrates sufficient competency and fits with the culture of the team, then match that compete window. Mgmt. clearly feels Suzuki, Caufield, Slaf, Guhle have done that, and Laine is on trial - could you not ask the same questions on Dach, Newhook, Matheson, and where are we going with Montembault? If you want to see players brought in that will help us for a future Cup run beyond our draft and develop prospects - then identify alternatives Askarov?, McGroarty?, Mercer? Trade for RFA's or similar prospects and immediately lock them up on limited bodies of work for 3 years like Newhook and Dach? Marner, Draitsatl, which future free agents? Where was HuGo going to use the 2025 cap space he had? There weren't any UFA's that either wanted to sign here (Marchessault, Stamkos, Lindholm, Montour etc.) that really would fit your window. I'm at a loss as to why you have to question the contract vision and not just enjoy the ride, and potential upside / leadership contributions to the team. If Laine fails, like I have said before, then the buyout cap hit in 2026 and 2027 is $2.4M - I see many other contenders with dead cap $ more than that, so it's hardly a downside hinderance. I for one, don't need the answers on where Laine will be at the end of his 2 year contract. I am going to enjoy watching the team evolve and let the results dictate the future. If Laine walks then just like Philip Danault vs. Brendan Gallagher, one hopes we make the right decision (have enough replacement depth - Demidov etc.), and you can't keep everyone under the cap system. So far for me HuGo has stayed pretty true to their vision - they want players that want to be here. I can live with that cultural fit vs. aligning contracts to the compete window.
It's one thing to put a team together that is as good as possible now, but that's how you run a team for a one-and-done tournament like the Olympics. Hey, I fully agree that Laine is going to be more exciting and productive than cap space for the coming season, you don't have to convince me about that. But to be honest, I'm not here to see a few highlight-reel goals and to miss the playoffs by a few fewer points than we otherwise would have. We've been waiting over 30 years for a Stanley Cup, and to me, that's the ultimate goal. Every move we make should be with the intent of increasing our chances of winning the Cup. Not all moves will have immediate impact, but there should be rationale for making them. I'll reiterate that I'm not debating that adding Laine helps our team. We are a much better team with him in our line-up than if we were to distribute those minutes to Gallagher, Armia, and Roy. But we need to consider that we're a better team for two years where we're not expected to challenge for a Cup. So I can't ignore where that leaves us when we are a contender. We spent a decade of Marc Bergevin tinkering to produce an acceptable but not fantastic product without any vision for how he was going to get to a Cup, and while Gorton and Hughes have shown they have much better vision overall, my point is just that I'm not clear how the Laine move projects. I'm not saying there isn't a plan here, just that it's not clear to me. As I said, best-case scenario for us is that he blows up for 40+ goals again, but if that happens, he's going to cost us big time on a long-term deal. You mentioned other UFAs or players, but if we were to have gone out two days ago and acquired Mitch Marner for a 7th round pick instead of making that Laine trade, then re-signed him to a one-year contract extension for 9M through 2025-26, I'd be asking the same questions of what exactly that move does for our future. Laine at 5 years, 7M AAV makes sense to me. Laine at 2 years, 8.7M makes less sense to me given the position this team is in re-building its roster. Absolutely, it makes the team more fun to watch next year, but I want to know where this is going to lead us down the line. If we're trading him for another draft pick in two years, it hasn't really put us that much further ahead. If we're letting him walk, we have nothing to show when it matters. If we re-sign him for 7-8 years at 9-10M AAV, then it's committing a lot of money longterm to this player.
The other thing to consider here is opportunity cost. We lost nothing asset-wise in this trade, but we did give up 17.4M in cap space over the next two years. We're technically now about 2-3M over the cap, with the goal to get under in the summer and put Price on LTIR in-season for reasons discussed before. It can be done, but it's not like we were sitting on 30M of cap space like some other teams. We made a conscious decision to use our cap space on Laine, which means we gave up the opportunity to use that space elsewhere. What if another team came calling in a few weeks to take a player like Monahan off their hands and gave us a 1st rounder to give up 5-6M in cap space for one year only? What if Rantanen or Draisaitl indicated to us that they want to come here next summer but they want a 6-7 year deal at 10M AAV and you can no longer afford them. I'm not saying any of this will happen, but this type of alternative needs to be factored in when assessing the Laine deal. This isn't Laine vs. nothing the way it would have been in a non-cap world. GMs pay a lot right now to get cap space, so 17.4M of cap room has value in and of itself.
Edward, while your points are certainly valid, I just can't see a lot of downside on the Laine deal. Getting him now for nothing besides a cap hit, I'm happy with that. By the time his deal is done Armia, DVO, and a host of others will be off of the books. By that time Gally and Anderson will have only one year left on their deals. What with all of the good deals we have signed with our young core I still feel really good about our future with or without Laine. At worst he is a stop- gap, at best he might prove to be a player we are very happy to move forward with - the choice will be his, and ours. It also gives two more years of development to some of our young offensive prospects. Meanwhile the guys that are taking the ice this year must be happy to see that management is trying to add to the group, and the groups success. I don't think it can be understated how important it is that the group feels more competitive this year, and what that effect might bring in terms of development in itself. And, just so you know, in another thread asking about acquiring Laine a couple of weeks ago - I was a HARD NO. But that was assuming we would have to give up assets to acquire him.
|
|
|
Post by jenniferrocket on Aug 22, 2024 16:47:09 GMT
Agreed. I'm pretty much done with the rebuild. Time to start adding some pieces and take a run at this thing. Playoffs are a lot more fun when your team is in it. Yeah. Same for me. I want to see a step in the right direction this season. I want to see them compete for a spot. If they don't make it, I can live with that, but I need to see some momentum this year. 2025-26 I want to see us in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by maasart on Aug 22, 2024 18:34:06 GMT
Interestingly, Waddell was on sports radio last night speaking about Laine trade.
Some notes: - When Waddell became GM he spoke with all of players about their future with the team. Laine informed him he didn't want to be part of their future.
- At the beginning of summer he spoke with many of the other GMs about Laine to get a feel for the market. Many clubs were interested but were cap tight. They wanted him to retain or take a bad contract back.
- When they worked out the deal in principle (Laine + 2nd for a young player), Montreal gave him a list of names (makes you wonder who was on there!) and he picked Harris. It sounds like he spent time going over the list with Timmins & thats who they chose.. Timmins drafting Harris makes you think he had some say in it.
- He said he had to include a 2nd unless there was salary retention, which he didnt want to do.
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Aug 22, 2024 20:04:28 GMT
Interestingly, Waddell was on sports radio last night speaking about Laine trade. Some notes: - When Waddell became GM he spoke with all of players about their future with the team. Laine informed him he didn't want to be part of their future. - At the beginning of summer he spoke with many of the other GMs about Laine to get a feel for the market. Many clubs were interested but were cap tight. They wanted him to retain or take a bad contract back. - When they worked out the deal in principle (Laine + 2nd for a young player), Montreal gave him a list of names (makes you wonder who was on there!) and he picked Harris. It sounds like he spent time going over the list with Timmins & thats who they chose.. Timmins drafting Harris makes you think he had some say in it. - He said he had to include a 2nd unless there was salary retention, which he didnt want to do. Yes, it sounds like Timmins was the one who pushed for Harris out of the players available. Based on what we know, you'd figure that the Habs were interested in moving out a LHD ahead of other options and that Harris and Struble might both have been on this list. Also possible Barron was on there, as a guy with a muddled future here. And then perhaps players like Heineman, Farrell, Tuch, etc. I doubt we would have given up an A prospect for this trade.
|
|
|
Post by ramcharger440 on Aug 22, 2024 20:37:17 GMT
Interestingly, Waddell was on sports radio last night speaking about Laine trade. Some notes: - When Waddell became GM he spoke with all of players about their future with the team. Laine informed him he didn't want to be part of their future. - At the beginning of summer he spoke with many of the other GMs about Laine to get a feel for the market. Many clubs were interested but were cap tight. They wanted him to retain or take a bad contract back. - When they worked out the deal in principle (Laine + 2nd for a young player), Montreal gave him a list of names (makes you wonder who was on there!) and he picked Harris. It sounds like he spent time going over the list with Timmins & thats who they chose.. Timmins drafting Harris makes you think he had some say in it. - He said he had to include a 2nd unless there was salary retention, which he didnt want to do. Yes, it sounds like Timmins was the one who pushed for Harris out of the players available. Based on what we know, you'd figure that the Habs were interested in moving out a LHD ahead of other options and that Harris and Struble might both have been on this list. Also possible Barron was on there, as a guy with a muddled future here. And then perhaps players like Heineman, Farrell, Tuch, etc. I doubt we would have given up an A prospect for this trade. Sounds about right I liked Harris but we just have so much depth on that side something had to give! in the end it is Harris a third round guy who has done what it takes to be in the NHL for a second round pick that is an unknown but has potential to be better than Harris or worse.... Laine is kind of an expensive short term throw in that may fail but could really be a master stroke for Hughes if it pans out. All in all it is going to be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
|
|
|
Post by maasart on Aug 22, 2024 22:37:39 GMT
Interestingly, Waddell was on sports radio last night speaking about Laine trade. Some notes: - When Waddell became GM he spoke with all of players about their future with the team. Laine informed him he didn't want to be part of their future. - At the beginning of summer he spoke with many of the other GMs about Laine to get a feel for the market. Many clubs were interested but were cap tight. They wanted him to retain or take a bad contract back. - When they worked out the deal in principle (Laine + 2nd for a young player), Montreal gave him a list of names (makes you wonder who was on there!) and he picked Harris. It sounds like he spent time going over the list with Timmins & thats who they chose.. Timmins drafting Harris makes you think he had some say in it. - He said he had to include a 2nd unless there was salary retention, which he didnt want to do. Yes, it sounds like Timmins was the one who pushed for Harris out of the players available. Based on what we know, you'd figure that the Habs were interested in moving out a LHD ahead of other options and that Harris and Struble might both have been on this list. Also possible Barron was on there, as a guy with a muddled future here. And then perhaps players like Heineman, Farrell, Tuch, etc. I doubt we would have given up an A prospect for this trade. Agree. I think that Columbus' biggest need is at LHD too so thats probably what they were focusing on. I like Harris but obviously one of our LHD had to go. I suspect that Struble was on that list too and im glad they took Harris as I think Struble has the higher ceiling (even though i am sad to see Harris go).
|
|
|
Post by graeme on Aug 24, 2024 21:48:28 GMT
This is an interesting trade. In my view, Harris was worth a 2nd rounder on his own. If you trade an established young NHL defenceman who appears to be a #4-5 guy, that's roughly the market for that type of asset. The Athletic says he's a giant bargain right now because his stats suggest a worth of about 3.4M and he's only making 1.4M. So in that regard, Columbus gets a serviceable D man on the cheap. The 2nd rounder is probably fair game for this, and the odds the 2nd rounder becomes as good as Harris or better is likely in the 10% range, so it's not good odds for us, but conversely, we knew we had to move a LHD and this helps to open up roster space. So that's that. I see the Harris for a 2nd rounder as a bit of a wash. To me, the trade then becomes Laine the player in exchange for taking on Laine's contract. I don't like that part as much, for reasons I've talked about before. According to The Athletic, Laine's expected output (if you put aside the injury and mental health issues) equates to value of about 6.6M. So we're overpaying here by over 2M for two consecutive years. That means that on his own, even if Laine plays to his expected value, we still took on about 4.2M of cap hit for nothing, and by previous NHL trade standards, that probably should have brought back a late 1st rounder or early 2nd rounder on its own. So IMO, not good value on the cap management for us. Now I think the obvious fan reaction is that we just acquired a scorer with a high upside without giving up anything that important. So I think the superficial way of looking at this trade is to say that it's a clear win for that reason. But I can't emphasize enough how much cap space is worth in today's NHL. And giving up 17.4M in cap space over two years is a big one for me. Are we getting the same value here that we are from paying a Suzuki, a Caufield, or a Slafkovsky? That's certainly a big question. I'd have a hard time believing Laine will be as complete a player, though I do think his potential to score goals in probably a bit higher than the others. But then past that, the next question is, what happens if he does play to his value? He's signed for two years, and we're not likely to be a Cup challenger in those two years. So what happens after that? If he has a career resurgence, are we going to be willing to pay him 9-10M a year on a longterm deal thereafter, or are we letting him walk as a UFA or trading him at that point? If he plays average hockey, then maybe we can re-sign him for cheaper, but then how much does that help us to sign a 20-goal scorer? Now add in the injury history and the mental health issues and there are a decent number of risks here. Ultimately, I think there is big upside potential here, which is the exciting part. I think this trade probably results in our PP being better and in our team moving up the standings by a few points. But the big picture is that I'm not sure how much that helps us. The goal is not necessarily to be 4-5 points better this year and next and then to make a big payout in two years or lose him when we want to be hitting our contention years. So I like the fit for the player: big guy with offensive skill who could have a resurgence playing for a player's coach in a hockey city. I'm less sold on the plan surrounding where this goes. I would have liked the trade better if Laine were signed to 4-5 years at 6M or if we had sent Anderson back the other way. I get that it's hard not to be excited about adding scoring punch, but I think we should have gotten more back for the amount of cap we took on. I think that's the right way to look at the trade: more or less Harris for a second and Laine for "future considerations".
But what we're doing here is purposely overpaying on AAV in order to get a high-ceiling player on a short-term deal for basically nothing - and I think that's a reasonable move. The important point is it's 2 years - this isn't like Washington taking on PLD. Cap space is valuable, but the question isn't about some abstract value of cap space, it's what the opportunity cost for Montreal over the next 2 years of losing that cap space? And I suspect it's not a lot - we don't need the space to re-sign our own players, we didn't find a better use for that cap space this summer (free agents, Monahan type salary dump, etc), and we have deals coming off the books next summer. I guess you never know when an opportunity will come along, but keeping 10 million in space "just in case" doesn't seem like a great prospect to me. So I'm okay with the overpay here given the 2-year term and Montreal not really needing that cap space in that time-frame.
In terms of the purpose, I think it's 2 things. Laine is young enough that I could see Montreal extending him if he can show he's turned a new leaf and extension is reasonable and accounts for both the gaps in Laine's game and the risks we'd still be taking - so getting him here for that trial makes sense. But the other factor is Montreal's management seems to be worried about the team basically becoming the Sabres spinning their wheels year after year - they want to see the team take a step forward this year, and Laine could help do that and provide a bridge to Demidov's arrival. I could certainly buy the argument that in the long-run we'd be better off with another top-five pick, but I don't think management sees it that way.
Overall I like this deal, although it may not work out well, the risk/downside seems minimal.
|
|
|
Post by claremont on Aug 25, 2024 1:57:01 GMT
This is an interesting trade. In my view, Harris was worth a 2nd rounder on his own. If you trade an established young NHL defenceman who appears to be a #4-5 guy, that's roughly the market for that type of asset. The Athletic says he's a giant bargain right now because his stats suggest a worth of about 3.4M and he's only making 1.4M. So in that regard, Columbus gets a serviceable D man on the cheap. The 2nd rounder is probably fair game for this, and the odds the 2nd rounder becomes as good as Harris or better is likely in the 10% range, so it's not good odds for us, but conversely, we knew we had to move a LHD and this helps to open up roster space. So that's that. I see the Harris for a 2nd rounder as a bit of a wash. To me, the trade then becomes Laine the player in exchange for taking on Laine's contract. I don't like that part as much, for reasons I've talked about before. According to The Athletic, Laine's expected output (if you put aside the injury and mental health issues) equates to value of about 6.6M. So we're overpaying here by over 2M for two consecutive years. That means that on his own, even if Laine plays to his expected value, we still took on about 4.2M of cap hit for nothing, and by previous NHL trade standards, that probably should have brought back a late 1st rounder or early 2nd rounder on its own. So IMO, not good value on the cap management for us. Now I think the obvious fan reaction is that we just acquired a scorer with a high upside without giving up anything that important. So I think the superficial way of looking at this trade is to say that it's a clear win for that reason. But I can't emphasize enough how much cap space is worth in today's NHL. And giving up 17.4M in cap space over two years is a big one for me. Are we getting the same value here that we are from paying a Suzuki, a Caufield, or a Slafkovsky? That's certainly a big question. I'd have a hard time believing Laine will be as complete a player, though I do think his potential to score goals in probably a bit higher than the others. But then past that, the next question is, what happens if he does play to his value? He's signed for two years, and we're not likely to be a Cup challenger in those two years. So what happens after that? If he has a career resurgence, are we going to be willing to pay him 9-10M a year on a longterm deal thereafter, or are we letting him walk as a UFA or trading him at that point? If he plays average hockey, then maybe we can re-sign him for cheaper, but then how much does that help us to sign a 20-goal scorer? Now add in the injury history and the mental health issues and there are a decent number of risks here. Ultimately, I think there is big upside potential here, which is the exciting part. I think this trade probably results in our PP being better and in our team moving up the standings by a few points. But the big picture is that I'm not sure how much that helps us. The goal is not necessarily to be 4-5 points better this year and next and then to make a big payout in two years or lose him when we want to be hitting our contention years. So I like the fit for the player: big guy with offensive skill who could have a resurgence playing for a player's coach in a hockey city. I'm less sold on the plan surrounding where this goes. I would have liked the trade better if Laine were signed to 4-5 years at 6M or if we had sent Anderson back the other way. I get that it's hard not to be excited about adding scoring punch, but I think we should have gotten more back for the amount of cap we took on. I think that's the right way to look at the trade: more or less Harris for a second and Laine for "future considerations".
But what we're doing here is purposely overpaying on AAV in order to get a high-ceiling player on a short-term deal for basically nothing - and I think that's a reasonable move. The important point is it's 2 years - this isn't like Washington taking on PLD. Cap space is valuable, but the question isn't about some abstract value of cap space, it's what the opportunity cost for Montreal over the next 2 years of losing that cap space? And I suspect it's not a lot - we don't need the space to re-sign our own players, we didn't find a better use for that cap space this summer (free agents, Monahan type salary dump, etc), and we have deals coming off the books next summer. I guess you never know when an opportunity will come along, but keeping 10 million in space "just in case" doesn't seem like a great prospect to me. So I'm okay with the overpay here given the 2-year term and Montreal not really needing that cap space in that time-frame.
In terms of the purpose, I think it's 2 things. Laine is young enough that I could see Montreal extending him if he can show he's turned a new leaf and extension is reasonable and accounts for both the gaps in Laine's game and the risks we'd still be taking - so getting him here for that trial makes sense. But the other factor is Montreal's management seems to be worried about the team basically becoming the Sabres spinning their wheels year after year - they want to see the team take a step forward this year, and Laine could help do that and provide a bridge to Demidov's arrival. I could certainly buy the argument that in the long-run we'd be better off with another top-five pick, but I don't think management sees it that way.
Overall I like this deal, although it may not work out well, the risk/downside seems minimal.
Entirely agree on the first bolded statement. 2nd bolded statement - If Laine is an absolute embarrassment, untradeable, well we wasted some cap space for this year. So you buy him out July 1/25 - spread the $4.6M over the 2026 & 2027 years - it isn't a bitter pill. Especially since Armia, Dvorak, Savard, Evans all come off the books and are essentially replaceable.
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Aug 25, 2024 2:28:45 GMT
This is an interesting trade. In my view, Harris was worth a 2nd rounder on his own. If you trade an established young NHL defenceman who appears to be a #4-5 guy, that's roughly the market for that type of asset. The Athletic says he's a giant bargain right now because his stats suggest a worth of about 3.4M and he's only making 1.4M. So in that regard, Columbus gets a serviceable D man on the cheap. The 2nd rounder is probably fair game for this, and the odds the 2nd rounder becomes as good as Harris or better is likely in the 10% range, so it's not good odds for us, but conversely, we knew we had to move a LHD and this helps to open up roster space. So that's that. I see the Harris for a 2nd rounder as a bit of a wash. To me, the trade then becomes Laine the player in exchange for taking on Laine's contract. I don't like that part as much, for reasons I've talked about before. According to The Athletic, Laine's expected output (if you put aside the injury and mental health issues) equates to value of about 6.6M. So we're overpaying here by over 2M for two consecutive years. That means that on his own, even if Laine plays to his expected value, we still took on about 4.2M of cap hit for nothing, and by previous NHL trade standards, that probably should have brought back a late 1st rounder or early 2nd rounder on its own. So IMO, not good value on the cap management for us. Now I think the obvious fan reaction is that we just acquired a scorer with a high upside without giving up anything that important. So I think the superficial way of looking at this trade is to say that it's a clear win for that reason. But I can't emphasize enough how much cap space is worth in today's NHL. And giving up 17.4M in cap space over two years is a big one for me. Are we getting the same value here that we are from paying a Suzuki, a Caufield, or a Slafkovsky? That's certainly a big question. I'd have a hard time believing Laine will be as complete a player, though I do think his potential to score goals in probably a bit higher than the others. But then past that, the next question is, what happens if he does play to his value? He's signed for two years, and we're not likely to be a Cup challenger in those two years. So what happens after that? If he has a career resurgence, are we going to be willing to pay him 9-10M a year on a longterm deal thereafter, or are we letting him walk as a UFA or trading him at that point? If he plays average hockey, then maybe we can re-sign him for cheaper, but then how much does that help us to sign a 20-goal scorer? Now add in the injury history and the mental health issues and there are a decent number of risks here. Ultimately, I think there is big upside potential here, which is the exciting part. I think this trade probably results in our PP being better and in our team moving up the standings by a few points. But the big picture is that I'm not sure how much that helps us. The goal is not necessarily to be 4-5 points better this year and next and then to make a big payout in two years or lose him when we want to be hitting our contention years. So I like the fit for the player: big guy with offensive skill who could have a resurgence playing for a player's coach in a hockey city. I'm less sold on the plan surrounding where this goes. I would have liked the trade better if Laine were signed to 4-5 years at 6M or if we had sent Anderson back the other way. I get that it's hard not to be excited about adding scoring punch, but I think we should have gotten more back for the amount of cap we took on. I think that's the right way to look at the trade: more or less Harris for a second and Laine for "future considerations".
But what we're doing here is purposely overpaying on AAV in order to get a high-ceiling player on a short-term deal for basically nothing - and I think that's a reasonable move. The important point is it's 2 years - this isn't like Washington taking on PLD. Cap space is valuable, but the question isn't about some abstract value of cap space, it's what the opportunity cost for Montreal over the next 2 years of losing that cap space? And I suspect it's not a lot - we don't need the space to re-sign our own players, we didn't find a better use for that cap space this summer (free agents, Monahan type salary dump, etc), and we have deals coming off the books next summer. I guess you never know when an opportunity will come along, but keeping 10 million in space "just in case" doesn't seem like a great prospect to me. So I'm okay with the overpay here given the 2-year term and Montreal not really needing that cap space in that time-frame.
In terms of the purpose, I think it's 2 things. Laine is young enough that I could see Montreal extending him if he can show he's turned a new leaf and extension is reasonable and accounts for both the gaps in Laine's game and the risks we'd still be taking - so getting him here for that trial makes sense. But the other factor is Montreal's management seems to be worried about the team basically becoming the Sabres spinning their wheels year after year - they want to see the team take a step forward this year, and Laine could help do that and provide a bridge to Demidov's arrival. I could certainly buy the argument that in the long-run we'd be better off with another top-five pick, but I don't think management sees it that way.
Overall I like this deal, although it may not work out well, the risk/downside seems minimal.
There are a few ways this deal just ends up being close to neutral for us... Laine gets hurt, Laine has mental health issues, Laine plays average hockey, and we just walk away at the end of two years. In those cases, we've lost cap space and the opportunity to weaponize that, but you're right that the longterm harm is minimal. It's just the loss of potential longterm gain by using that cap space say the way we used it in the Monahan trades.
But let's address the bolded part of your argument. Let's say Laine does return to the form that saw him score 40+ goals. Let's say Laine puts up 35 goals and 60 points this coming season and then 45 goals and 70 points the year after. So now he's a 28-year old 45-goal scorer whose proven he's back and can still score in the NHL. Great! A ripping success for the Habs. You've definitely made your team better over those two years he was here, but my question all along has been, so then what? I'll reiterate what I've said this entire time: it's not that this is a bad trade, it's just an intriguing one, because it's hard to tell where this is going. It's kind of like when Bergevin traded Sergachev for Drouin, and we said, okay, he's trying to address the lack of a top 6 center this way and maybe it'll work out and maybe it won't, but the bigger question was what follow-up move was coming to make that fit. In that case, one never came. I have a similar type question here... if Hughes ends up flipping Laine in two years for a 24 year-old who is signed to a reasonable 5-year deal and helps us longterm, then great. If he re-signs Laine to the "reasonable" extension you're referring to, then great. But what are the odds that Laine plays really well, as I detailed above, and then wants to sign that reasonable deal with us?
What would you want at that point if you're Laine? Are you signing a deal for 6.5M AAV after scoring 45 goals? Probably not. Almost certainly not. Are you signing a deal for 4 years and making yourself a UFA again at age 32, with the hope that someone will offer you 7 years at that point? Not a smart move. If you're Laine and you've maximized your value over the next two years, it's likely your last chance to sign the big-money longterm deal, and if the Habs aren't offering that, someone else will. I said this about Carey Price too. A lot of people complained about Carey's 10M+ contract, but he controlled all the negotiations at that point. It wasn't Bergevin deciding between a 7.5M AAV deal and a 10.5M one. It was Bergevin deciding between signing the deal Carey wanted or trading him. So we may well end up facing a similar decision with Laine in two years. Let's say that's where we get and the Laine camp wants an 8-year deal at 10M AAV. Are we signing that? Are we signing a guy for ages 28 to 36 and paying more than Suzuki, Caufield, or Slafkovsky? It might well be market price for the 2-3 years that follow, but such a contract would almost certainly bite us hard for the latter half of that deal.
And that's really all I'm saying. This wasn't a trade where we ended up with Laine signed for 4-5 more years at 6M AAV. This wasn't Laine coming here on the last year of his deal at 8.7M with the ability to lock in the extension as part of the trade whereby we know what we'd be paying him to keep him. If Laine truly does rebound, he's going to be expensive to keep. He's going to easily be the most expensive player on our roster for the next 5 years. So is that the best use of our money? Again, I'm fully on board with how exciting it is to add Laine. I believe he will be an impact player here for the next two years. I believe we are a better club with him here. But with most of HuGo's moves to date, you had an idea of how they swa them playing out. You had an idea that he was going to try and flip Monahan after re-building his value. You had an idea what he wanted to do with Dach and Newhook and Matheson. You had an idea of what he hoped to get from Gurianov and knew what his out was there. With this deal, it's difficult for me to feel out what his plan is for Laine. It seems like this is much more of a "we had a chance to acquire a skill player and let's just see where this goes" as opposed to a calculated move, the way most of his other trades and signings seem to have been. So I'm not even sure Hughes knows where he intends to go with this, and in that way, it's an interesting deviation from his usual M.O. But from my perspective, I can't judge how this trade helps us until knowing where this ends up. If Laine does end up signing for 4-5 years at a reasonable amount, then heck yes. I'm just not convinced that's how this unfolds.
|
|
|
Post by ramcharger440 on Aug 25, 2024 3:39:59 GMT
OK
|
|
regis
Le Gros Bill
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by regis on Aug 25, 2024 14:16:11 GMT
They got Laine for basically nothing . An excess 3 rd line ( probably ) D man I don’t think this team , before Laine , was going anywhere .by that I mean making the playoffs . Yea the young players are a year older but that can be said for every team in the league I’m going to guess / ASSume they tried to acquire some other potential top 6 forward and it wasn’t working out . So they added a top 6 player ,who should make them better , is it enough to make the playoffs , I still don’t think so because there’s a lot of teams to surpass and I don’t think they’re all going to suck and we’re going to do great . It should be an exciting year We’ll deal with what happens with Laine in 2 years . If he does great maybe we try to resign , maybe we flip him, maybe he sucks and we can’t trade him . Geez we signed Slafkovsky to an extension , what happens if he turns into Galchenyuk ?? Laines missed considerable time the last “ three “ years for whatever reasons But when these two years are up hopefully one of the prospects we have high hopes for is ready to step in and we move on
People were clamouring for us to sign 34 yr old Stamkos. Which IMO made no sense
|
|
|
Post by graeme on Aug 25, 2024 18:35:06 GMT
I think that's the right way to look at the trade: more or less Harris for a second and Laine for "future considerations".
But what we're doing here is purposely overpaying on AAV in order to get a high-ceiling player on a short-term deal for basically nothing - and I think that's a reasonable move. The important point is it's 2 years - this isn't like Washington taking on PLD. Cap space is valuable, but the question isn't about some abstract value of cap space, it's what the opportunity cost for Montreal over the next 2 years of losing that cap space? And I suspect it's not a lot - we don't need the space to re-sign our own players, we didn't find a better use for that cap space this summer (free agents, Monahan type salary dump, etc), and we have deals coming off the books next summer. I guess you never know when an opportunity will come along, but keeping 10 million in space "just in case" doesn't seem like a great prospect to me. So I'm okay with the overpay here given the 2-year term and Montreal not really needing that cap space in that time-frame.
In terms of the purpose, I think it's 2 things. Laine is young enough that I could see Montreal extending him if he can show he's turned a new leaf and extension is reasonable and accounts for both the gaps in Laine's game and the risks we'd still be taking - so getting him here for that trial makes sense. But the other factor is Montreal's management seems to be worried about the team basically becoming the Sabres spinning their wheels year after year - they want to see the team take a step forward this year, and Laine could help do that and provide a bridge to Demidov's arrival. I could certainly buy the argument that in the long-run we'd be better off with another top-five pick, but I don't think management sees it that way.
Overall I like this deal, although it may not work out well, the risk/downside seems minimal.
There are a few ways this deal just ends up being close to neutral for us... Laine gets hurt, Laine has mental health issues, Laine plays average hockey, and we just walk away at the end of two years. In those cases, we've lost cap space and the opportunity to weaponize that, but you're right that the longterm harm is minimal. It's just the loss of potential longterm gain by using that cap space say the way we used it in the Monahan trades.
But let's address the bolded part of your argument. Let's say Laine does return to the form that saw him score 40+ goals. Let's say Laine puts up 35 goals and 60 points this coming season and then 45 goals and 70 points the year after. So now he's a 28-year old 45-goal scorer whose proven he's back and can still score in the NHL. Great! A ripping success for the Habs. You've definitely made your team better over those two years he was here, but my question all along has been, so then what? I'll reiterate what I've said this entire time: it's not that this is a bad trade, it's just an intriguing one, because it's hard to tell where this is going. It's kind of like when Bergevin traded Sergachev for Drouin, and we said, okay, he's trying to address the lack of a top 6 center this way and maybe it'll work out and maybe it won't, but the bigger question was what follow-up move was coming to make that fit. In that case, one never came. I have a similar type question here... if Hughes ends up flipping Laine in two years for a 24 year-old who is signed to a reasonable 5-year deal and helps us longterm, then great. If he re-signs Laine to the "reasonable" extension you're referring to, then great. But what are the odds that Laine plays really well, as I detailed above, and then wants to sign that reasonable deal with us?
What would you want at that point if you're Laine? Are you signing a deal for 6.5M AAV after scoring 45 goals? Probably not. Almost certainly not. Are you signing a deal for 4 years and making yourself a UFA again at age 32, with the hope that someone will offer you 7 years at that point? Not a smart move. If you're Laine and you've maximized your value over the next two years, it's likely your last chance to sign the big-money longterm deal, and if the Habs aren't offering that, someone else will. I said this about Carey Price too. A lot of people complained about Carey's 10M+ contract, but he controlled all the negotiations at that point. It wasn't Bergevin deciding between a 7.5M AAV deal and a 10.5M one. It was Bergevin deciding between signing the deal Carey wanted or trading him. So we may well end up facing a similar decision with Laine in two years. Let's say that's where we get and the Laine camp wants an 8-year deal at 10M AAV. Are we signing that? Are we signing a guy for ages 28 to 36 and paying more than Suzuki, Caufield, or Slafkovsky? It might well be market price for the 2-3 years that follow, but such a contract would almost certainly bite us hard for the latter half of that deal.
And that's really all I'm saying. This wasn't a trade where we ended up with Laine signed for 4-5 more years at 6M AAV. This wasn't Laine coming here on the last year of his deal at 8.7M with the ability to lock in the extension as part of the trade whereby we know what we'd be paying him to keep him. If Laine truly does rebound, he's going to be expensive to keep. He's going to easily be the most expensive player on our roster for the next 5 years. So is that the best use of our money? Again, I'm fully on board with how exciting it is to add Laine. I believe he will be an impact player here for the next two years. I believe we are a better club with him here. But with most of HuGo's moves to date, you had an idea of how they swa them playing out. You had an idea that he was going to try and flip Monahan after re-building his value. You had an idea what he wanted to do with Dach and Newhook and Matheson. You had an idea of what he hoped to get from Gurianov and knew what his out was there. With this deal, it's difficult for me to feel out what his plan is for Laine. It seems like this is much more of a "we had a chance to acquire a skill player and let's just see where this goes" as opposed to a calculated move, the way most of his other trades and signings seem to have been. So I'm not even sure Hughes knows where he intends to go with this, and in that way, it's an interesting deviation from his usual M.O. But from my perspective, I can't judge how this trade helps us until knowing where this ends up. If Laine does end up signing for 4-5 years at a reasonable amount, then heck yes. I'm just not convinced that's how this unfolds.
I think it will depend what Laine cares about. If he just wants to maximize his earnings, then I agree an extension seems unlikely even if he does really well - some team will probably throw more money at him than we're comfortable with. But after his career arc and mental health issues, if he enjoys being in Montreal and playing for Marty, it's not inconceivable that he could sign for a more reasonable number. I don't know his life philosophy, so can't really say how likely that is or not.
But let's say he leaves after 2 solid seasons - so what then? I think management would argue he made the team better and helped our young players take a step and play in meaningful games (even if we don't make the playoffs, being in the playoff race in the spring could have value). It's impossible to know if "losing culture" is a real thing, but it does make some intuitive sense to me that having your players playing in games where the results really don't matter (or even worse, where winning is considered a bad thing) year after year may not be the best for their development as a team. Arpon Basu was on the Athletic podcast this last week and he believes that this aspect was Montreal's main justification for the trade, rather than the "tryout" aspect of it.
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Aug 25, 2024 18:53:44 GMT
There are a few ways this deal just ends up being close to neutral for us... Laine gets hurt, Laine has mental health issues, Laine plays average hockey, and we just walk away at the end of two years. In those cases, we've lost cap space and the opportunity to weaponize that, but you're right that the longterm harm is minimal. It's just the loss of potential longterm gain by using that cap space say the way we used it in the Monahan trades.
But let's address the bolded part of your argument. Let's say Laine does return to the form that saw him score 40+ goals. Let's say Laine puts up 35 goals and 60 points this coming season and then 45 goals and 70 points the year after. So now he's a 28-year old 45-goal scorer whose proven he's back and can still score in the NHL. Great! A ripping success for the Habs. You've definitely made your team better over those two years he was here, but my question all along has been, so then what? I'll reiterate what I've said this entire time: it's not that this is a bad trade, it's just an intriguing one, because it's hard to tell where this is going. It's kind of like when Bergevin traded Sergachev for Drouin, and we said, okay, he's trying to address the lack of a top 6 center this way and maybe it'll work out and maybe it won't, but the bigger question was what follow-up move was coming to make that fit. In that case, one never came. I have a similar type question here... if Hughes ends up flipping Laine in two years for a 24 year-old who is signed to a reasonable 5-year deal and helps us longterm, then great. If he re-signs Laine to the "reasonable" extension you're referring to, then great. But what are the odds that Laine plays really well, as I detailed above, and then wants to sign that reasonable deal with us?
What would you want at that point if you're Laine? Are you signing a deal for 6.5M AAV after scoring 45 goals? Probably not. Almost certainly not. Are you signing a deal for 4 years and making yourself a UFA again at age 32, with the hope that someone will offer you 7 years at that point? Not a smart move. If you're Laine and you've maximized your value over the next two years, it's likely your last chance to sign the big-money longterm deal, and if the Habs aren't offering that, someone else will. I said this about Carey Price too. A lot of people complained about Carey's 10M+ contract, but he controlled all the negotiations at that point. It wasn't Bergevin deciding between a 7.5M AAV deal and a 10.5M one. It was Bergevin deciding between signing the deal Carey wanted or trading him. So we may well end up facing a similar decision with Laine in two years. Let's say that's where we get and the Laine camp wants an 8-year deal at 10M AAV. Are we signing that? Are we signing a guy for ages 28 to 36 and paying more than Suzuki, Caufield, or Slafkovsky? It might well be market price for the 2-3 years that follow, but such a contract would almost certainly bite us hard for the latter half of that deal.
And that's really all I'm saying. This wasn't a trade where we ended up with Laine signed for 4-5 more years at 6M AAV. This wasn't Laine coming here on the last year of his deal at 8.7M with the ability to lock in the extension as part of the trade whereby we know what we'd be paying him to keep him. If Laine truly does rebound, he's going to be expensive to keep. He's going to easily be the most expensive player on our roster for the next 5 years. So is that the best use of our money? Again, I'm fully on board with how exciting it is to add Laine. I believe he will be an impact player here for the next two years. I believe we are a better club with him here. But with most of HuGo's moves to date, you had an idea of how they swa them playing out. You had an idea that he was going to try and flip Monahan after re-building his value. You had an idea what he wanted to do with Dach and Newhook and Matheson. You had an idea of what he hoped to get from Gurianov and knew what his out was there. With this deal, it's difficult for me to feel out what his plan is for Laine. It seems like this is much more of a "we had a chance to acquire a skill player and let's just see where this goes" as opposed to a calculated move, the way most of his other trades and signings seem to have been. So I'm not even sure Hughes knows where he intends to go with this, and in that way, it's an interesting deviation from his usual M.O. But from my perspective, I can't judge how this trade helps us until knowing where this ends up. If Laine does end up signing for 4-5 years at a reasonable amount, then heck yes. I'm just not convinced that's how this unfolds.
I think it will depend what Laine cares about. If he just wants to maximize his earnings, then I agree an extension seems unlikely even if he does really well - some team will probably throw more money at him than we're comfortable with. But after his career arc and mental health issues, if he enjoys being in Montreal and playing for Marty, it's not inconceivable that he could sign for a more reasonable number. I don't know his life philosophy, so can't really say how likely that is or not.
But let's say he leaves after 2 solid seasons - so what then? I think management would argue he made the team better and helped our young players take a step and play in meaningful games (even if we don't make the playoffs, being in the playoff race in the spring could have value). It's impossible to know if "losing culture" is a real thing, but it does make some intuitive sense to me that having your players playing in games where the results really don't matter (or even worse, where winning is considered a bad thing) year after year may not be the best for their development as a team. Arpon Basu was on the Athletic podcast this last week and he believes that this aspect was Montreal's main justification for the trade, rather than the "tryout" aspect of it.
To play Devil's advocate here, let's say the Habs had made more of a push to make the post-season the past 3 years instead of ending up in the league basement. Let's say we had kept Lehkonen and Chiarot and Toffoli and signed someone like Taylor Hall to a 3-year deal for those three seasons and that we managed to challenge for the playoffs... so let's say instead of drafting Slafkovsky, Reinbacher, and Demidov, we had ended up drafting between 13-16 in those seasons and instead had landed Lekkerimaki, Matthew Wood, and Adam Jiricek instead. Three decent players but guys who are unlikely to be game-changing stars. Would we be better off today removing the three guys we picked top 5 and the guys we got in return for trading Lehky and Toffoli and Chiarot?
I agree that you don't want to have a longstanding losing culture either, but that's where finding the right coaches and captain and so on come in. Even though this team has been poor in the standings the last 3 years, I don't get the sense this is a team with a losing culture. I get the sense this is a team that is building towards something. So as long as there is progression on an individual level for our most important players and hope that the right pieces are being put together, then the results will come over time. You look at Colorado, and that team was near the bottom of the standings before drafting the likes of Mackinnon and Makar and Raantanen. You look at Pittsburgh before Crosby and Malkin, and Chicago before Toews, Kane, and Keith. A lot of the teams that became top-tier for many years suffered through being bottom-feeders for several years before that, and it didn't create a culture of losing that couldn't be overcome. In fact, it's pretty clear that teams with top 5 choices on their roster had better odds of winning down the line.
Bottom line for me: adding Laine for two seasons, if he walks after that for nothing or is traded for a marginal return, doesn't help that much. Either he's here in the years we want to challenge for a Cup or else something we got for him is here in those years. Past that, it's conjecture. You look at the likes of Suzuki and Caufield and Anderson and Evans and so on, and those players got to play with Price and Weber and Petry and Perry and Staal and make it to a Cup final, and yet that hasn't helped this team be any more successful as a group the past 3 seasons. You are what you are at the moment you're in. I'm all for adding veterans to the supporting cast at the moment we're ready. I'm all for having that playoff experience when we get there. And so again, if Laine is re-signed to a reasonable deal and is here when it matters, all the better. I'll reiterate that I have a good feeling about the player doing well here. But to boost us from 5th last to 10th last or from 8th last to 14th last shouldn't be the goal. This trade is a success to me based on what it yields for us when we want to be a contender.
|
|
|
Post by graeme on Aug 26, 2024 1:17:50 GMT
I think it will depend what Laine cares about. If he just wants to maximize his earnings, then I agree an extension seems unlikely even if he does really well - some team will probably throw more money at him than we're comfortable with. But after his career arc and mental health issues, if he enjoys being in Montreal and playing for Marty, it's not inconceivable that he could sign for a more reasonable number. I don't know his life philosophy, so can't really say how likely that is or not.
But let's say he leaves after 2 solid seasons - so what then? I think management would argue he made the team better and helped our young players take a step and play in meaningful games (even if we don't make the playoffs, being in the playoff race in the spring could have value). It's impossible to know if "losing culture" is a real thing, but it does make some intuitive sense to me that having your players playing in games where the results really don't matter (or even worse, where winning is considered a bad thing) year after year may not be the best for their development as a team. Arpon Basu was on the Athletic podcast this last week and he believes that this aspect was Montreal's main justification for the trade, rather than the "tryout" aspect of it.
To play Devil's advocate here, let's say the Habs had made more of a push to make the post-season the past 3 years instead of ending up in the league basement. Let's say we had kept Lehkonen and Chiarot and Toffoli and signed someone like Taylor Hall to a 3-year deal for those three seasons and that we managed to challenge for the playoffs... so let's say instead of drafting Slafkovsky, Reinbacher, and Demidov, we had ended up drafting between 13-16 in those seasons and instead had landed Lekkerimaki, Matthew Wood, and Adam Jiricek instead. Three decent players but guys who are unlikely to be game-changing stars. Would we be better off today removing the three guys we picked top 5 and the guys we got in return for trading Lehky and Toffoli and Chiarot?
Right, but I don't think anyone (nor our management) is arguing you should never spend time at the bottom of the league - the argument is more that staying there too long can become harmful. I agree the team doesn't have a "losing culture" and perhaps that was a bad way to describe it, but it is the case that the majority of our young core hasn't played a single NHL game where the result really mattered (nor has our coach) and I can see why our management wants to change that. They're not going to mortgage the future or anything, but their mindset has shifted from purely a developmental/tanking one.
|
|