• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Habs Season Thread: 2024-25 Regular Season

GGpX said:
It's a low risk trade if you're starting to move up the proverbial ladder.

But in an organization that was bereft of talent, we gave up a late first & early second for a player who, in hindsight, Colorado didn't seem all that interested in keeping and it might be showing, and that by the time this team should be good, he's not going to be here anymore? And if he's still here, signed to a crippling contract?

All in all, it's a pointless trade.
Click to expand...
not a chance on crippling contract , need to produce to get one
 
GGpX said:
I started writing about players and their contracts a few days ago, but it's difficult to tie everything together because there are so many issues relating to it.

The NHL is a fucking terrible league whose league structure, rules and collective agreement push teams towards mediocrity and making it incredibly difficult to be good, let alone great. There's a massive scarcity in elite talent every year, and the easiest way to attain it is by tanking. And by tanking, you're virtually guaranteeing that your franchise is going to be unwatchable for a minimum of five to seven years. Minimum. Because teams don't just tank for one year and decide the job's done, let's get back to winning! like it's just a temporary phase and not a massive roster overhaul.

(And that's with no actual guarantee of attaining success, btw.)
Click to expand...
I have said it before the NHL is the worst league to manage your business with the hard cap and gap between ELC and term deals

Once you are contending or wins cups your soon to be cap fucked , player departures, and your job is 10x harder to remain competitive

However the bigger issue is teams are too fucken scared to make tough decisions , get ahead of the curve , etcc....

Stop making bad moves and handing out fucked out contracts when you know 90% of them will end in tears .

We cant blame the cap /CBA BS when you are stupid enough to give Anderson ,Gally and Price nearly 28% of your cap

You mentioned last week how Colorado fucked their competitive window .....simply put dont fuck it up get ahead of the curve

Regimes have to stop caving in and say NO once in a while
 
Last edited:
Players get drafted too young.

And most players drafted don’t even sniff the NHL even after years of development

But let’s add more teams so talent gets spread even thinner
 
CH1 said:
Players get drafted too young.

And most players drafted don’t even sniff the NHL even after years of development

But let’s add more teams so talent gets spread even thinner
Click to expand...
Yup , its all about revenue but Seattle and Vegas have helped prop up moola
 
GGpX said:
There are ways around it that are so easy and I'd be shocked if either the players or owners objected to it.

Allow true free agency at the earliest of:

-24 years of age; or
-5 accrued seasons of NHL hockey (set the benchmark at being on the NHL roster for 42 or more games)

Also, along with that,
-Contracts no longer than 5 years

All current contracts grandfathered in, changes start on July 1st 2025.
Click to expand...
The 5 year contract is the way to go and maybe push up the ELC to 4 years with the fourth a guarantee at a certain dollar amount

However the shorter contracts will wipe out the middle class overnight ,higher AAV`s and much less money left for players 10-23 on your team

Free agency is fine at the current system as many young players now are taking big coin earlier byapssing UFA years
 
CH1 said:
Players get drafted too young.

And most players drafted don’t even sniff the NHL even after years of development

But let’s add more teams so talent gets spread even thinner
Click to expand...
Draft is the biggest issue for teams hoping to rebuild through the draft. It takes about 4-5 years for a player to develop correctly. Use 4-5 drafts to build a core and you’re looking at 8-10 years before your core has matured. It’s a reason teams tend to try to speed up the process by adding vets in the latter part, to buy some time for the kids to develop and surround them with decent players.
 
I'd definitely change the buy out rules too. Too many teams and players get stuck in bad situations. My suggestion is simple and not radical at all change. Reduce cap hit to 50% (players still get the same amount as today) and allow teams to decide how long they want to spread the payout, to a maximum of twice the contract remaining years (as it is right now).
 
GrandWazoo said:
I'd definitely change the buy out rules too. Too many teams and players get stuck in bad situations. My suggestion is simple and not radical at all change. Reduce cap hit to 50% (players still get the same amount as today) and allow teams to decide how long they want to spread the payout, to a maximum of twice the contract remaining years (as it is right now).
Click to expand...
Good point
 
GEEMAN said:
not a chance on crippling contract , need to produce to get one
Click to expand...
This is why discussing contracts with you is impossible. You have such a poor understanding of contracts and what they mean.

There's no such thing as a crippling contract on a bottom feeding team. What is the "crippling" contract preventing those bad teams from doing? Crippling implies that it severely limits or deprives the ability to function normally. A crippling contract is Darnell Nurse on the Oilers.

Giving Newhook a two, four, six year contract changes nothing on this team's cap for the duration of his tenure here during said contracts. He had no leverage to ask for significantly more money and I'm told by some here that NHLers love security to avoid all those career ending injuries you see on a nightly basis. Sarcasm intended.

The length on the contract, however, completely changes the outlook of what you can do with Newhook in the future and, most importantly, how many years you can have exclusive control over him.

A two year contract: Maybe he improves, maybe he stays the same, maybe he regresses. If he improves or stays the same, he's 24 when his contract ends, all options are on the table for contract length as he'll be a RFA. If he's bad, cut him loose and move on to the next player, or try to sign him at an amount lower than the qualifying offer.

A six year contract. Contract ends when he's 28 and he's a UFA. (Remember the rule about forwards reaching their late 20s / early 30s? It's vital to know this rule if you're a manager.) Regardless of how he plays, this team is going to mostly suck during the duration of that whole contract. If he's good the whole time, great. You trade him with a year or two remaining in his contract to recoup some future prospects. Under no circumstances do you re-sign him.

We chose to give him a four year contract, which was the worst option of all. He'll be 26 and a RFA, with one year of hockey left before he becomes a UFA. If he's good, he'll want his retirement contract at a duration of 6-7-8 years and significantly more money than the $2.9M he's making now. If he's not good, he rights might get traded or we might just not even qualify him.

The main problem is, by the end of that contract, that should be around the time this team is starting to become competitive (in theory, not so sure in practice) and we can't afford to give him the money and/or term he wants.
 
GrandWazoo said:
I'd definitely change the buy out rules too. Too many teams and players get stuck in bad situations. My suggestion is simple and not radical at all change. Reduce cap hit to 50% (players still get the same amount as today) and allow teams to decide how long they want to spread the payout, to a maximum of twice the contract remaining years (as it is right now).
Click to expand...
Make it less , a stiff like Huberdeau at 40%

Or only guarantee a certain amount of years
 
CH1 said:
Players get drafted too young.

And most players drafted don’t even sniff the NHL even after years of development

But let’s add more teams so talent gets spread even thinner
Click to expand...
In 2020, the NHL had a golden opportunity to push the draft eligibility year from 18 years old to 19 years old with a perfect excuse: The world shut down, COVID happened and plenty of players didn't have an opportunity to play.

But since this is the NHL we're dealing with...

I don't agree that there's a lack of talent in the NHL; I think the NHL, as a whole, is as talented as it's been in a very long time. The problem, in my view: There's a lack of talent moving around during those players's prime years.
 
GrandWazoo said:
Draft is the biggest issue for teams hoping to rebuild through the draft. It takes about 4-5 years for a player to develop correctly. Use 4-5 drafts to build a core and you’re looking at 8-10 years before your core has matured. It’s a reason teams tend to try to speed up the process by adding vets in the latter part, to buy some time for the kids to develop and surround them with decent players.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I've become more and more anti-draft and more free market is that when someone gets hired, they always say "we're going build through the draft" when it's bullshit. Building through the draft, beyond the lottery picks, is an unsustainable model that nobody in the history of hockey has been to replicate at scale.
 
I would entirely be in favor of reducing the amount of rounds in every draft. Change it from 7 to 3 or 4, then the remaining players can become UFAs and/or camp invites.
 
TheCountofMonteCristo said:
iirc, on Viris' old sandbox, you used to laugh at LeafFan for supporting the team regardless and said we would NEVER accept shit for years. Now you call for us to be shit AND to accept it.
Click to expand...
Striving for mediocrity every year is the acceptance of shit and the Leafs were never rebuilding. Their mandate was always to get the owners some playoff gates.

This is a rebuild HuGo is doing here, not a hamster wheel of mediocrity like the Leafs or the pre-HuGo Habs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top