• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
Your going way way overboard over a third liner , non impact player

Hugo simply lets him walk if he stinks , same as Dach
 
GGpX said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, unless you get lucky with lottery picks, it just doesn't work.
 
GEEMAN said:
Your going way way overboard over a third liner , non impact player

Hugo simply lets him walk if he stinks , same as Dach
Click to expand...
Asset management and contract management is primordial to building a contending team, much moreso than the players themselves.

Dach's situation is completely different from Newhook's situation for one simple reason: Their ages and the year they can become UFAs.
 
GGpX said:
Asset management and contract management is primordial to building a contending team, much moreso than the players themselves.

Dach's situation is completely different from Newhook's situation for one simple reason: Their ages and the year they can become UFAs.
Click to expand...
Is one year really makes all the difference? Both contracts expire one year away from free agency, one at 25 and the other at 26. Dach just started in the league younger.
 
GrandWazoo said:
Is one year really makes all the difference? Both contracts expire one year away from free agency, one at 25 and the other at 26. Dach just started in the league younger.
Click to expand...
Yes. Just one year makes a ton of difference, also because the outlook for the two is different: Dach's seen as a top-6 forward, Newhook a top-9. I don't, on principle, ever think term for a depth forward that is a good idea.

Let's say Dach explodes between now and the end of his contract. I wouldn't want to give him an 8 year deal, but an 8 year deal that ends when he's 33 is something I can live with because we'll have him through his prime years and while I think it's unlikely, there's a small chance he'll still be good by the end of that contract. But even if he's not and we get 6 years where Dach is worth his contract and 2 where he's still decent, but overpaid? You can live with that. Not to mention, you can leave the door open to possibly trading him when he's 29 or 30 before he dips in productivity.

For Newhook, I don't want anything to do with him once he reaches 30, probably even before then. If we were to re-sign him beyond the contract we have him on now, there isn't a realistic situation where the contract turns out in this team's advantage.
 
GGpX said:
Yes. Just one year makes a ton of difference, also because the outlook for the two is different: Dach's seen as a top-6 forward, Newhook a top-9. I don't, on principle, ever think term for a depth forward that is a good idea.

Let's say Dach explodes between now and the end of his contract. I wouldn't want to give him an 8 year deal, but an 8 year deal that ends when he's 33 is something I can live with because we'll have him through his prime years and while I think it's unlikely, there's a small chance he'll still be good by the end of that contract. But even if he's not and we get 6 years where Dach is worth his contract and 2 where he's still decent, but overpaid? You can live with that. Not to mention, you can leave the door open to possibly trading him when he's 29 or 30 before he dips in productivity.

For Newhook, I don't want anything to do with him once he reaches 30, probably even before then. If we were to re-sign him beyond the contract we have him on now, there isn't a realistic situation where the contract turns out in this team's advantage.
Click to expand...
At this pace both are busts IMO and highly doubt anyone is breaking out

I trust Hugo if in charge will handle the contract situation properly

As you said before if in 2-3 years down the road team isnt turned around why keep it together

This is where common sense prevails and avoid a future bad contract

Overpaying the secondary players is where you get smoked
 
GEEMAN said:
At this pace both are busts IMO and highly doubt anyone is breaking out

I trust Hugo if in charge will handle the contract situation properly

As you said before if in 2-3 years down the road team isnt turned around why keep it together

This is where common sense prevails and avoid a future bad contract

Overpaying the secondary players is where you get smoked
Click to expand...
2-3 years, then start over,,,,,
 
GGpX said:
Yes. Just one year makes a ton of difference, also because the outlook for the two is different: Dach's seen as a top-6 forward, Newhook a top-9. I don't, on principle, ever think term for a depth forward that is a good idea.

Let's say Dach explodes between now and the end of his contract. I wouldn't want to give him an 8 year deal, but an 8 year deal that ends when he's 33 is something I can live with because we'll have him through his prime years and while I think it's unlikely, there's a small chance he'll still be good by the end of that contract. But even if he's not and we get 6 years where Dach is worth his contract and 2 where he's still decent, but overpaid? You can live with that. Not to mention, you can leave the door open to possibly trading him when he's 29 or 30 before he dips in productivity.

For Newhook, I don't want anything to do with him once he reaches 30, probably even before then. If we were to re-sign him beyond the contract we have him on now, there isn't a realistic situation where the contract turns out in this team's advantage.
Click to expand...
I'm still having a hard time following, if we worried about Newhook going in his 30s, just offer him a 4 years contract when he has one year left on his current contract, and if he doesn't want to sign, then trade him. A Newhook is replaceable.
 
GrandWazoo said:
I'm still having a hard time following, if we worried about Newhook going in his 30s, just offer him a 4 years contract when he has one year left on his current contract, and if he doesn't want to sign, then trade him. A Newhook is replaceable.
Click to expand...
Why would either side want a four year deal?

If Newhook is good, he's going to point directly to Jean-Gabriel Pageau as a comparable and ask for 6 years @ $5M+. If Newhook played 82 games last year, he was on pace for a better year than any single year in Pageau's career.

And if Newhook's mediocre or bad, why would we want to give him four years?

This keeps coming back to the same issue: There isn't a realistic situation where re-signing Newhook at the end of his current contract makes any sense to me.
 
GGpX said:
Why would either side want a four year deal?

If Newhook is good, he's going to point directly to Jean-Gabriel Pageau as a comparable and ask for 6 years @ $5M+. If Newhook played 82 games last year, he was on pace for a better year than any single year in Pageau's career.

And if Newhook's mediocre or bad, why would we want to give him four years?

This keeps coming back to the same issue: There isn't a realistic situation where re-signing Newhook at the end of his current contract makes any sense to me.
Click to expand...
Depends what Newhook is at that point. Pageau is a solid two-way right handed center that excels at faceoffs. We don't even know if Alex is a center yet, he's not right handed, not exactly a defensive specialist, and he's certainly not an ace on the dot, but he's got speed and some offensive skills. And again, we might have interest in keeping him at certain terms, that might or might not do work for him, and we still have the option of moving on. I do think the most likely outcome if that he gets traded before the end of his contract. He might be closer to a Evan Rodrigues than a Pageau, and Rodrigues signed a 4 years at 3M/year contract.
 
GGpX said:
Why would either side want a four year deal?

If Newhook is good, he's going to point directly to Jean-Gabriel Pageau as a comparable and ask for 6 years @ $5M+. If Newhook played 82 games last year, he was on pace for a better year than any single year in Pageau's career.

And if Newhook's mediocre or bad, why would we want to give him four years?

This keeps coming back to the same issue: There isn't a realistic situation where re-signing Newhook at the end of his current contract makes any sense to me.
Click to expand...
very realistic situation

Make a common sense hockey decision in due time based on the teams outlook

Newhook is the type of secondary piece you never overpay

Ask old man Lou how many bad contracts he handed he regrets
 
GrandWazoo said:
Depends what Newhook is at that point. Pageau is a solid two-way right handed center that excels at faceoffs. We don't even know if Alex is a center yet, he's not right handed, not exactly a defensive specialist, and he's certainly not an ace on the dot, but he's got speed and some offensive skills. And again, we might have interest in keeping him at certain terms, that might or might not do work for him, and we still have the option of moving on. I do think the most likely outcome if that he gets traded before the end of his contract. He might be closer to a Evan Rodrigues than a Pageau, and Rodrigues signed a 4 years at 3M/year contract.
Click to expand...
ER is a solid fit on a cup team and priced right

AN gets moved next year and end the experiment if he doesnt improve

I dont care what comps are for secondary players , easily replaceable for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top