Proposal: Another Price Proposal

[Seras]

Price will likely be worth his contract for the next few years. It's after that which will be brutal.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Well, considering you know how a goalie can win a cup (Thomas), maybe you would like to put an offer forward for Price? I'll just leave the old homer glasses on and watch Andersen/Matthews/Nylander/Marner.

I did not say that Thomas won us that Cup (as in singlehandedly), I said that I heard others say that enough times.
He was our top performing player in 2011, but without other great performances by other players (especially Chara, Bergeron, Horton, Marchand and Seidenberg), we wouldn't have won it either. It was a total team effort. It was great to have the best goalie of 10-11 in our net though, let me tell you...

In any case, we're set with Rask, thank you. Furthermore, I was commenting on that homerish offer by a Leafs fan, not a Bruins fan. Want the best goalie in the league at well below (and 50% retained, no less, lol!) what the other established no 1s make for long term, without offering assets of equal value? Please.

 

[TOGuy14]

3 years ago - Habs had arguably the top 1-2 player punch in the league outside of Pittsburgh. Not sure if they were exactly #2 but can't be far off.

Subban got signed to a big deal. Fantastic he's with us long term. Oh wait...then they trade him.

Now you want to do the same with Price?

It's been 7 games. And price is NOT overpaid by the Habs when they still have an extra 9M of unused cap space. We can afford him.

I don't think a single human outside of Montreal ever thought that the Habs had the top 1-2 player punch outside of Pittsburgh

 

[nhlfan9191]

Price 50% retained for Frederik Andersen, Kapanen and a 1st round pick.

So we downgrade from Price to Andersen, retain 50% which means we’re now using $10 million in cap on Andersen while the Leafs are getting Price for $5, for a bottom 6 forward and a mid-late first? Common man.

 

[Ken Wreggets revenge]

There is really no debating about this: upgrading from Greiss to Price is not worth sacrificing 7.16 million of cap space and assets for.

That's not up for you or anyone other than Islander management to determine. What you meant to say is "it's not worth debating with me about this because NHL GMs make decisions that are based on what I determine is valuable and I say Price isn't worth it therefore it will never happen".

But since you're getting so butt hurt, I'll edit my original post and remove your quote as my reply was directed more at the theme of the thread (Carey Price and how much salary needs to be retained) than it was at you trying to push your opinions as facts.

 

[Stuzchuk]

FWIW, Price may have a Full NMC now. When contract extensions are signed NMC/NTC's can be retroactively applied to the current contract, so long as the player would have been eligible to have one the current season. Details like that often go unreported in the media.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he did have the full NMC now.

yes, I am aware that there could be a hidden clause that we're not aware of (say a 5 team trade list), just like the "verbal agreement" between D. Lombardi and D. Brown that was rumored at the time of his extension

I have to agree with you that I would not be all entirely surprised if they didnt arranged a FULL NMC that started the day that he signed that 8 yrs extension

 

[Habs10025]

Great player, unmovable contract.

He might be movable if Montreal retained 30% for the length of the deal that would leave Montreal with 3 150 000 cap hit for 8 seasons starting next season.. The cap hit for the team acquiring him would be 7 350 000 per for 8 seasons . Wow those numbers look brutal forget Bergevin What was Molson thinking allowing this contract to even be offered ?

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

Only 11 threads on the first page for Montreal...

Galchenyuk is literally the only player of real value they have and the Habs have done their best to lower his value. Just tank for 3 years and be done with it.

 

[Maukkis]

That's not up for you or anyone other than Islander management to determine. What you meant to say is "it's not worth debating with me about this because NHL GMs make decisions that are based on what I determine is valuable and I say Price isn't worth it therefore it will never happen".

But since you're getting so butt hurt, I'll edit my original post and remove your quote as my reply was directed more at the theme of the thread (Carey Price and how much salary needs to be retained) than it was at you trying to push your opinions as facts.

If that's a card you want to play, then the entire trade board becomes meaningless, so there's that. Nobody here knows more than the next guy, and those who do avoid this section of HF like a plague.

But yeah. We will see if any GM will bite before Price's NMC becomes active. My money is on "no, no GM thinks that goaltending is the one part of your roster you should overpay for that much". Also, you conveniently dodged the rest of the post, from which you could have learned how trading for Price would have set the Isles back for seemingly little benefit.

A loss of a 20 goal scorer, quality futures, a starting goalie, cap space both in short- and long term, as well as flexibility in terms of cap management (being tied to an overpaid goalie rather than an overpaid winger). That would be the price for upgrading your goalie from .913 to .923. How is that worth it?

 

[Ken Wreggets revenge]

If that's a card you want to play, then the entire trade board becomes meaningless, so there's that. Nobody here knows more than the next guy, and those who do avoid this section of HF like a plague.

But yeah. We will see if any GM will bite before Price's NMC becomes active. My money is on "no, no GM thinks that goaltending is the one part of your roster you should overpay for that much". Also, you conveniently dodged the rest of the post, from which you could have learned how trading for Price would have set the Isles back for seemingly little benefit.

A loss of a 20 goal scorer, quality futures, a starting goalie, cap space both in short- and long term, as well as flexibility in terms of cap management (being tied to an overpaid goalie rather than an overpaid winger). That would be the price for upgrading your goalie from .913 to .923. How is that worth it?

The first of the two scenarios relies on a hypothetical situation where Price plummets. The potential for a drop off in production isn't limited to just Price and is a risk that every GM takes when signing any player to any length of deal. Scenario one also tries to argue that Andrew Ladd is valuable. Ladd was signed to a 7 year, $38.5M deal to be the 50, 60 point player he was with the Jets but instead the Islanders got a 31 point, -14 player who now holds what is widely believed to be one of the two worst contracts on the team. His 31 points wouldn't be hard to replace.

The second scenario relies on the Islanders hoarding their picks and prospects, staying the course with mediocre goaltending and then handing the net to unproven rookies which contradicts the teams apparent win-now approach by trying to lock Tavares into a Price sized contract along with comments from ownership like these...

"I’d like to see our progress continue. I think the team has the ability to do that. There should be standards by which teams are measured, and that should be winning the Stanley Cup."

“There are no financial constraints on Garth and the team. So if we need to be cap-max to compete for a Stanley Cup, we will be cap-max,” the 58-year-old Ledecky said. “If there are other places we need to spend money…there are no constraints."


EDIT: The Isles are looking to win now. Not every team is looking to rebuild and the potential for a Price deal is there (even with 0% retained) with any team looking to push for a cup in the next few years. Again, not saying anything HAS to happen, WILL happen or that the Isles are even looking at him, I'm just saying that the potential is there.

 

[Number8]

That Bergeron guy sucks

Ha ha...... my mistake -- Freudian slip. Of course Bergie would likely be a hell of a lot better GM than Bergevin.

 

[The Great Weal]

Ha ha...... my mistake -- Freudian slip. Of course Bergie would likely be a hell of a lot better GM than Bergevin.

To be fair, a dog could probably be a better gm.

 

[tucker3434]

Toronto can.

Not if they want to keep the rest of the core intact.

 

[Maukkis]

The first of the two scenarios relies on a hypothetical situation where Price plummets. The potential for a drop off in production isn't limited to just Price and is a risk that every GM takes when signing any player to any length of deal. Scenario one also tries to argue that Andrew Ladd is valuable. Ladd was signed to a 7 year, $38.5M deal to be the 50, 60 point player he was with the Jets but instead the Islanders got a 31 point, -14 player who now holds what is widely believed to be one of the two worst contracts on the team. His 31 points wouldn't be hard to replace.

The second scenario relies on the Islanders hoarding their picks and prospects, staying the course with mediocre goaltending and then handing the net to unproven rookies which contradicts the teams apparent win-now approach by trying to lock Tavares into a Price sized contract along with comments from ownership like these...

"I’d like to see our progress continue. I think the team has the ability to do that. There should be standards by which teams are measured, and that should be winning the Stanley Cup."

“There are no financial constraints on Garth and the team. So if we need to be cap-max to compete for a Stanley Cup, we will be cap-max,” the 58-year-old Ledecky said. “If there are other places we need to spend money…there are no constraints."


EDIT: The Isles are looking to win now. Not every team is looking to rebuild and the potential for a Price deal is there (even with 0% retained) with any team looking to push for a cup in the next few years. Again, not saying anything HAS to happen, WILL happen or that the Isles are even looking at him, I'm just saying that the potential is there.

Does it really? I stated that if the Isles acquire him, the Isles either sink or swim with him: he may prove to be worthy of his contract (which, given all the comparable goalies, their production and cap hits, would equate to numbers that are unprecedented - possibly .935-.940 or even better over the course of a season), or he may not. Either way, they would still be paying substantially more for their goaltending than their competitors, which is why I see Price's contract as one that every team should steer away from - even the Habs should have.

Andrew Ladd has on-ice value. That might not translate into trade value, but 23 goals and reliable two-way play is significant.. Last year, there were 96 players who scored twenty goals or more. That's a shade over three per team. Calling that easy to replace is far-fetched. For the price they're paying, yes, 31 points is quite low, but the Isles are paying much less extra on top of what a player of Ladd's caliber should make than Montreal is paying for Price.

Your second paragraph appears to be wrong too. Not going for Price does not equate to hoarding picks and prospects, nor does it mean that they are necessarily staying the course. What it actually means is that they are being sensible about their use of assets. One way of doing this is avoiding Price's contract and "settling" for Greiss, which gives them much more cap room and flexibility. This, in turn, allows for building a deeper team, offering more support to the core pieces, and above all, giving the team a better chance of progressing forward. This is not to say that Price would make the whole team stagnate, but as I have stated multiple times, the upgrade from Greiss to Price isn't substantial enough to justify using that much cap space and other assets for. For reference, having Greiss play at .923 last year would have resulted in 14.5 less goals against. At the same time, giving up Ladd alone would have resulted in a loss of 23 goals, of which at least nine would have had to be replaced to just break even. Admittedly, that is a hypothetical and therefore irrelevant scenario, but as an example of how small a difference goalies of that caliber actually make over a long period of time, it is quite telling.

I fail to see what the ownership has to do with this. If Snow is to have a free rein financially, he has that regardless of how he decides to allocate the money. This brings us back to the previous point - Snow still has to figure out the best way of using the money he has. It is safe to assume that out of the current assets in the organization, Tavares is by far the one he is prioritizing. Now, we do not know what Tavares wants, but no matter what happens, the Isles will either live or die with him. Without Tavares, what they have in place closely resembles Montreal: an OK defense, a somewhat promising group of wingers, no center depth to write home about, and OK goaltending. The only real difference is in that they only have league average goaltending, whereas Montreal has an elite one. The problem should be quite clear now, but to rehash the point: the Isles would essentially become the new Canadiens, and that is not something you want to happen. However, what if Tavares stays? Well, the earlier point still stands: contracts considered, it makes very little sense to tie 7.16 million more to the goaltending. Now when Montreal's model has been brought up, it is also worth noting how little success it has brought to have a team built around a goalie. Elite skaters, such as Tavares and Weber, are mandatory for every contender, which has been proven on numerous occasions over the years. So is elite goaltending, but you can easily find that for much, much cheaper than 10.5 million a year.

 

[LaP]

Worse for NSH, maybe.

It's pretty bad for us too unless you did not watch Weber plays lately.

 

[Lindys Lazy Eye]

Vegas can do it if you can include MAF. Lol

 

[ole ole]

Tell that to Jones, Bishop and even Darling (he is nowhere near Price in terms of being proven and talented, but if he pans out, that's 6.4 million of difference in cap hits for a relatively small difference in production), who all signed their new deals this summer and are going to be their respective teams' starting goalies. The average salary of those three is not even half of what Price will make.

Remember that's a big if.

 

[crowi]

Not true. They’re simply the first to pay their goalie the next tier of salaries but every team will be in this situation when they come to re-signing their #1 goaltender. Price was just the first upper echelon goalie to be re-signed after the McDavid contract. They’ll all be going that way now.

He is an average goalie with a few good regular seasons.

 

[Habs10025]

Teams needing a goalie ? Phoenix , Florida with Loungo nearing the end , Nashville would they rather Pekka Rinne or Price ? , New York I , Winnipeg , Buffalo if their serious about their rebuild .? If Price is to be traded it'll be to one of these teams with Montreal receiving in return not being as good as many think

 

[Benstheman]

If Mtl decide to go on a full rebuild, which i would pretty much like, i would have no problem, as a habs fan, retaining 2,5M$ on his contract.

Considering full rebuild takes about 4-5 years, this retention would have absolutely no impact on team's cap during the process. After that?? No one knows what will happen with the new CBA and all. What would be the cap ceiling?? 2,5M$ on a 90M$ cap isn't that big of a problem.

As for the team getting Price, it would worth it for about 4-5 years also, which is the length of a cup contending window. After that, the contract might become a problem but so are other contracts.

 

[Habs10025]

Does it really? I stated that if the Isles acquire him, the Isles either sink or swim with him: he may prove to be worthy of his contract (which, given all the comparable goalies, their production and cap hits, would equate to numbers that are unprecedented - possibly .935-.940 or even better over the course of a season), or he may not. Either way, they would still be paying substantially more for their goaltending than their competitors, which is why I see Price's contract as one that every team should steer away from - even the Habs should have.

Andrew Ladd has on-ice value. That might not translate into trade value, but 23 goals and reliable two-way play is significant.. Last year, there were 96 players who scored twenty goals or more. That's a shade over three per team. Calling that easy to replace is far-fetched. For the price they're paying, yes, 31 points is quite low, but the Isles are paying much less extra on top of what a player of Ladd's caliber should make than Montreal is paying for Price.

Your second paragraph appears to be wrong too. Not going for Price does not equate to hoarding picks and prospects, nor does it mean that they are necessarily staying the course. What it actually means is that they are being sensible about their use of assets. One way of doing this is avoiding Price's contract and "settling" for Greiss, which gives them much more cap room and flexibility. This, in turn, allows for building a deeper team, offering more support to the core pieces, and above all, giving the team a better chance of progressing forward. This is not to say that Price would make the whole team stagnate, but as I have stated multiple times, the upgrade from Greiss to Price isn't substantial enough to justify using that much cap space and other assets for. For reference, having Greiss play at .923 last year would have resulted in 14.5 less goals against. At the same time, giving up Ladd alone would have resulted in a loss of 23 goals, of which at least nine would have had to be replaced to just break even. Admittedly, that is a hypothetical and therefore irrelevant scenario, but as an example of how small a difference goalies of that caliber actually make over a long period of time, it is quite telling.

I fail to see what the ownership has to do with this. If Snow is to have a free rein financially, he has that regardless of how he decides to allocate the money. This brings us back to the previous point - Snow still has to figure out the best way of using the money he has. It is safe to assume that out of the current assets in the organization, Tavares is by far the one he is prioritizing. Now, we do not know what Tavares wants, but no matter what happens, the Isles will either live or die with him. Without Tavares, what they have in place closely resembles Montreal: an OK defense, a somewhat promising group of wingers, no center depth to write home about, and OK goaltending. The only real difference is in that they only have league average goaltending, whereas Montreal has an elite one. The problem should be quite clear now, but to rehash the point: the Isles would essentially become the new Canadiens, and that is not something you want to happen. However, what if Tavares stays? Well, the earlier point still stands: contracts considered, it makes very little sense to tie 7.16 million more to the goaltending. Now when Montreal's model has been brought up, it is also worth noting how little success it has brought to have a team built around a goalie. Elite skaters, such as Tavares and Weber, are mandatory for every contender, which has been proven on numerous occasions over the years. So is elite goaltending, but you can easily find that for much, much cheaper than 10.5 million a year.

New York getting Price and having to take on his salary odds are will never happen .. Tavares is an unrestricted player after this season . That being the case New York doesn't have anything that would help Montreal more than Price already does.

 

[Habs10025]

If Mtl decide to go on a full rebuild, which i would pretty much like, i would have no problem, as a habs fan, retaining 2,5M$ on his contract.

Considering full rebuild takes about 4-5 years, this retention would have absolutely no impact on team's cap during the process. After that?? No one knows what will happen with the new CBA and all. What would be the cap ceiling?? 2,5M$ on a 90M$ cap isn't that big of a problem.

As for the team getting Price, it would worth it for about 4-5 years also, which is the length of a cup contending window. After that, the contract might become a problem but so are other contracts.

A total tear down and rebuild can be a good thing but it can also be a dangerous thing . Everyone points to Pittsburgh , Chicago, but there are other teams that did the same and failed . If luck isn't on your side the draft lottery can destroy any plan of getting better

 

[Ciao]

He might be movable if Montreal retained 30% for the length of the deal that would leave Montreal with 3 150 000 cap hit for 8 seasons starting next season.. The cap hit for the team acquiring him would be 7 350 000 per for 8 seasons . Wow those numbers look brutal forget Bergevin What was Molson thinking allowing this contract to even be offered ?

Price doesn't need an NTC. His cap-hit does that already.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Price 50% retained for Frederik Andersen, Kapanen and a 1st round pick.

No way on gods green earth, Would MB retain $5.25 million on Carey Price for the next 8 years that's not even realistic especially if the Habs were heading towards a rebuild here.

 

[Ciao]

A total tear down and rebuild can be a good thing but it can also be a dangerous thing . Everyone points to Pittsburgh , Chicago, but there are other teams that did the same and failed . If luck isn't on your side the draft lottery can destroy any plan of getting better

I agree with you.

I also think Montreal is best to ride these contracts out.

If and when Weber fades, it won't hurt the Habs if he retires a little early. That's Nashville's problem.

Eight years of retention on Price is too much.