Speculation: About adding a LD (Markov, Gardiner...)

[FedorTyutin]

Hello there,

Watching the news recently, a lot of possibilities about adding a LD are involved. Whether it's Markov through a PTO, Gardiner's signing as a UFA of e.g. Brodie via a trade with Calgary, it seems a lot of different scenarios could happen. Julien's statement at Drouin's tournament could ppint toward Bergevin's summer not being over.

However, I'm feeling there could be an issue in the process. The left side at defense is currently filled with Mete, Kulak, Reilly and Chiarot :

- It is likely, with the current attributes of each of these Dmen, that Mete will be playing with Weber. He is a young defenseman, developing interestingly and I feel that drafting him is something to be proud of from Timmins and Bergevin's perspective. Therefore, I feel he will stay for a while.

- Kulak just signed a three-year extension. Played a lot last year, had an all-around good season.

- Reilly just signed a two-year extension. Didn't play much.

- Chiarot was brought from UFA market and will likely play on the bottom four.

In order to bring a new LD, there would be an obligation to move away one of those four. But looking at their status, doesn't it feel highly unlikely to see one of them being shipped? I mean, signing an extension with a team normally means that you're in the plans. Among the ones above, I feel Reilly is the most likely to be moved, but at the same time he just signed. He would be if he signed one year (like Hudon, who was also RFA, is likely to be moved in my perspective), but it's two in his case.

Another possible scenario would be to play, say, Kulak on the right side, but then you have to have two Dmen not playing each night, + leaving Juulsen almost automatically all season in the AHL.

I would love to have your feelings about this. Although I would love to see a good LD land in Montreal, it seems to me that we would to trade a guy we just signed, which would send a weird message to potentiel UFA...

What do you guys think?

Click to read more...

 

[vokiel]

I think the habs aren't shopping for anything at the moment and some bloggers are looking for clicks and ad impressions. That's what I think

 

[Tyson]

Habs have 8 NHL D already signed...

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Habs have 8 NHL D already signed...

So anytime a team has 8 Ds signed, they should never make a trade?

 

[FedorTyutin]

And Alzner. And Leskinen.

 

[Tyson]

So anytime a team has 8 Ds signed, they should never make a trade?

I think they can make moves for sure. I was just stating we have 8 D already. I am all in on bringing the General back

 

[LaP]

However, I'm feeling there could be an issue in the process. The left side at defense is currently filled with Mete, Kulak, Reilly and Chiarot :

Let's assume none of those guys would be here. Technically the left side would still be filled. Reilly, Alzner, Sklenicka, Leskinen, Ouellet.

Being filled with guys who are not good enough is not being filled. It's being not good enough. And imo there's absolutely no denying that a left side of Mete, Kulak and Chiarot is not good enough. And it's not like this left side is projecting to be good enough in 2-3 years. Unless someone is winning at the 649 this is not good enough.

Now i can understand that maybe we prefer to figure out which of those 3 guys is be the best 3rd pairing dman instead of finding a short term solution. Once we can find a real 1st pairing LHD we will still need the best 3rd pairing guy we can find. Maybe one of them could become an okay 4th dman who knows we could be lucky? <

But for sure having those 3 guys should not prevent us from trying to find a long term solution. I like Mete but he's not projecting as a 1st pairing dman. Maybe Romanov. Maybe Struble. Struble is a good 5 years away from there though and as a 2nd round pick he'll need to make huge progress. We really should try to find a solution outside of our prospects pool cause while our prospects pool is good overall it's rather weak on the left side of the defense.

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

If we get gardiner, then trade Reilly/Folin, move kulak to the right side, and have Juulsen start in the ahl

 

[FedorTyutin]

Let's assume none of those guys would be here. Technically the left side would still be filled. Alzner, Sklenicka, Leskinen, Ouellet.

Being filled with guys who are not good enough is not being filled. It's being not good enough. And imo there's absolutely no denying that a left side of Mete, Kulak and Chiarot is not good enough. And it's not like this left side is projecting to be good enough in 2-3 years. Unless someone is winning at the 649 this is not good enough.

Now i can understand that maybe we prefer to figure out which of those 3 guys is be the best 3rd pairing dman instead of finding a short term solution. Once we can find a real 1st pairing LHD we will still need the best 3rd pairing guy we can find. Maybe one of them could become an okay 4th dman who knows we could be lucky? <

But for sure having those 3 guys should not prevent us from trying to find a long term solution. I like Mete but he's not projecting as a 1st pairing dman. Maybe Romanov. Maybe Struble. Struble is a good 5 years away from there though and as a 2nd round pick he'll need to make huge progress. We really should try to find a solution outside of our prospects pool cause while our prospects pool is good overall it's rather weak on the left side of the defense.

Its just moving a guy we just signed sends a weird message, no? As weird as trading Byron would be if it happened this year, IMO, since his extension starts as of now.

 

[Miller Time]

would've been better off signing Markov to a 1-year deal than adding Chiarot.... but with that signing done, there's really no room/reason to add Markov unless Kulak gets dealt.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Habs have 8 NHL D already signed...

None of whom are close to first line pairing blueliners.

 

[Tyson]

None of whom are close to first line pairing blueliners.

Quantity is not quality for sure

 

[pepperMonkey]

Hello there,

Watching the news recently, a lot of possibilities about adding a LD are involved. Whether it's Markov through a PTO, Gardiner's signing as a UFA of e.g. Brodie via a trade with Calgary, it seems a lot of different scenarios could happen. Julien's statement at Drouin's tournament could ppint toward Bergevin's summer not being over.

However, I'm feeling there could be an issue in the process. The left side at defense is currently filled with Mete, Kulak, Reilly and Chiarot :

- It is likely, with the current attributes of each of these Dmen, that Mete will be playing with Weber. He is a young defenseman, developing interestingly and I feel that drafting him is something to be proud of from Timmins and Bergevin's perspective. Therefore, I feel he will stay for a while.

- Kulak just signed a three-year extension. Played a lot last year, had an all-around good season.

- Reilly just signed a two-year extension. Didn't play much.

- Chiarot was brought from UFA market and will likely play on the bottom four.

In order to bring a new LD, there would be an obligation to move away one of those four. But looking at their status, doesn't it feel highly unlikely to see one of them being shipped? I mean, signing an extension with a team normally means that you're in the plans. Among the ones above, I feel Reilly is the most likely to be moved, but at the same time he just signed. He would be if he signed one year (like Hudon, who was also RFA, is likely to be moved in my perspective), but it's two in his case.

Another possible scenario would be to play, say, Kulak on the right side, but then you have to have two Dmen not playing each night, + leaving Juulsen almost automatically all season in the AHL.

I would love to have your feelings about this. Although I would love to see a good LD land in Montreal, it seems to me that we would to trade a guy we just signed, which would send a weird message to potentiel UFA...

What do you guys think?

First, I'm not a fan of Jake Gardiner... But if by chance we can get a hold of a legit first or second pairing D... You do it! Figure out who to move after of you must. Our LD is weak, period. Who cares if we just got, or gave a contract to one of our lesser tier D's. There is no way a GM would decide not to get someone like Jake Gardiner (contract and trade costs aside) because we just picked up a Chiarot or some such.

 

[pepperMonkey]

would've been better off signing Markov to a 1-year deal than adding Chiarot.... but with that signing done, there's really no room/reason to add Markov unless Kulak gets dealt.

10 games. We seriously can't afford room for Markov for just 10 games? And if by some miracle, Markov can still play, we seriously can't find room for a LD that would be better than any of our current D's (again, this assumes by some miracle Markov can still play impactful hockey)?

 

[MrNasty]

Hello there,

Watching the news recently, a lot of possibilities about adding a LD are involved. Whether it's Markov through a PTO, Gardiner's signing as a UFA of e.g. Brodie via a trade with Calgary, it seems a lot of different scenarios could happen. Julien's statement at Drouin's tournament could ppint toward Bergevin's summer not being over.

However, I'm feeling there could be an issue in the process. The left side at defense is currently filled with Mete, Kulak, Reilly and Chiarot :

- It is likely, with the current attributes of each of these Dmen, that Mete will be playing with Weber. He is a young defenseman, developing interestingly and I feel that drafting him is something to be proud of from Timmins and Bergevin's perspective. Therefore, I feel he will stay for a while.

- Kulak just signed a three-year extension. Played a lot last year, had an all-around good season.

- Reilly just signed a two-year extension. Didn't play much.

- Chiarot was brought from UFA market and will likely play on the bottom four.

In order to bring a new LD, there would be an obligation to move away one of those four. But looking at their status, doesn't it feel highly unlikely to see one of them being shipped? I mean, signing an extension with a team normally means that you're in the plans. Among the ones above, I feel Reilly is the most likely to be moved, but at the same time he just signed. He would be if he signed one year (like Hudon, who was also RFA, is likely to be moved in my perspective), but it's two in his case.

Another possible scenario would be to play, say, Kulak on the right side, but then you have to have two Dmen not playing each night, + leaving Juulsen almost automatically all season in the AHL.

I would love to have your feelings about this. Although I would love to see a good LD land in Montreal, it seems to me that we would to trade a guy we just signed, which would send a weird message to potentiel UFA...

What do you guys think?

Not all for the bolded statement. An RFA signing a new contract and a UFA signing are completely different scenarios. An RFA cannot choose his team. The team can resign an RFA because they believe they have value on either their team or another. The player signs it because he wants to maintain an NHL contract and has limited rights as an RFA; especially an RFA that is a borderline NHL player.
A GM should not and would not refuse upgrading their team because a bottom line player may get his feelings hurt.
It is however very rare for a team to trade a recently signed UFA unless there is a mutual interest in leaving. That would kill a teams reputation if they signed UFA's and then traded them.

 

[Miller Time]

10 games. We seriously can't afford room for Markov for just 10 games? And if by some miracle, Markov can still play, we seriously can't find room for a LD that would be better than any of our current D's (again, this assumes by some miracle Markov can still play impactful hockey)?

Sure, as a token gesture we can certainly do that... But I'd there any indication that he's looking for that? I understood that he wanted to play the season...

Mete & Chiarot are locks, Kulak & Reilly are both signed for 2 yrs, makes no sense for us to have both sitting in the press box waiting for injuries to open up space as they would if Markov was brought in for the year

 

[FedorTyutin]

Not all for the bolded statement. An RFA signing a new contract and a UFA signing are completely different scenarios. An RFA cannot choose his team. The team can resign an RFA because they believe they have value on either their team or another. The player signs it because he wants to maintain an NHL contract and has limited rights as an RFA; especially an RFA that is a borderline NHL player.
A GM should not and would not refuse upgrading their team because a bottom line player may get his feelings hurt.
It is however very rare for a team to trade a recently signed UFA unless there is a mutual interest in leaving. That would kill a teams reputation if they signed UFA's and then traded them.

What I am suggesting is if Bergevin was strategically considering the possibility of keeping Reilly as either a suprisingly efficient Dman (like he started last season) or trade him if he failed to do so, wouldn't he have signed him as an RFA for 1 year only?

 

[Milhouse40]

What?
You mean filling the team up with crap early on might be a problem for improving?
Cause i have heard about something here on HF….apparently, every small contract can be put in the minor.


Having said that.
I don't believe in the possibility of Gardiner cause it's like playing for the enemy.
He loves Toronto but if he does this, he'll be one of the most hated player in this town.
I don't think Markov will sign here cause it would already be done.

So it leaves the trade market. There's always options there.
But if a trade happens, one of our left D just has to go the other way.

 

[OnTheRun]

Its just moving a guy we just signed sends a weird message, no? As weird as trading Byron would be if it happened this year, IMO, since his extension starts as of now.

Sending mixed signals and weird messages is what this team has done for the past 7 years... Why stop now?

 

[ProMath]

The only possibility in my mind is a trade.

If we land a top LD, I would bet Mete would be part of the trade.

In reality...I think nothing will happen. Maybe a small deal to use our cap space (cap dump type of deal that won’t hurt us for longer then 2 years).

Markov I would gave a pto...but that is not a solution to our LD problem.