Do we though? He's a third line offensive winger. Would you sign him 1 year for 3 million? 4 million?
That would also lead to him getting a QO for that amount the following year.
Player Discussion Rem Pitlick - The New Byron Edition
- Thread starter KevSkillz4
- Start date
Do we though? He's a third line offensive winger. Would you sign him 1 year for 3 million? 4 million?
That would also lead to him getting a QO for that amount the following year.
Prairie Habs
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 11,974
- 12,403
Byron's first contract after we got him off waivers was amazing. 3y x 1.5M or something. I think he hit 20+ goals in each of the first 2 years as well and was then hurt in the last year.
What's the worst that could happen if we sign him for 1 year though? He plays meh and we flip him at the deadline with retention for a pick? Some team will want depth and he's already shown he can start hot on a new team.
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
I think I've just read Paul Byron's profile or Lehkonen. It's strange that an hab fan like me who followed partially Habs last season have no memory of Rem Pitlick. So he skates fast and is good defensivly. So HuGo better keep him?
... but one year or two. Not more. This team must not sign too long terms with marginals players.
Last edited:
We already have plenty of contracts to retain on. You can only retain on 3 contracts.
Current candidates for this year: Drouin, Dadonov, Byron, Allen, Hoffman (less likely since he has 2 years), Petry (very unlikely)
2024: Hoffman, Edmundson, Petry (unlikely)
MarkovsKnee
Global Moderator
He has arbitration rights & it didn't cost us anything to get him. I thought a Yamamoto type contract would be fine. 1 year at $1,25m while he proves himself with another good year.
He's already 25 though, so who knows maybe we're low balling him at less than a million.
If he goes UFA, he'll have suitors, although he isn't going to get huge money I can see a team giving him $6m over 3 years, which I would not want to do.
He's already 25 though, so who knows maybe we're low balling him at less than a million.
If he goes UFA, he'll have suitors, although he isn't going to get huge money I can see a team giving him $6m over 3 years, which I would not want to do.
...maybe he's holding out for the Family Package, like they offer for a new cell phone...sign two Pitlicks at regular price and get the third one for a dollar...something like that, anyways...
nhlfan9191
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2010
- 19,705
- 17,573
I really don’t think we’d low ball an asset who just had a really good season with us. At least I like to think that’s not what’s happening. He’d be a really good stop gap for us which makes me think he’s probably asking for something crazy or at least a figure that his small sample size doesn’t justify yet.
HabsWhiteKnightLOL
Registered User
Meh let him walk , the story was good
but he's pretty unidimensional like the other wingers we have and he's not worth a Byron contract at all. Also needs to be said that his shooting % was insanely high most of the season , something that no players in the nhl can keep at 20%.
We also need money for Romanov.
We have already like 9 wingers for a third line without him. We gonna be aight on this part.
but he's pretty unidimensional like the other wingers we have and he's not worth a Byron contract at all. Also needs to be said that his shooting % was insanely high most of the season , something that no players in the nhl can keep at 20%.
We also need money for Romanov.
We have already like 9 wingers for a third line without him. We gonna be aight on this part.
Start by giving him his qualifying offer, and retain his rights at least.
Then be prepared to trade for an asset or sign him for 1 year at anything under $2.1M (if we had tomatch an offer sheet). If he is offersheeted more than $2.1M, we can take the second round pick in 2023.
I'd like to have him back but definitely only at the right price.
The Habs cap situation is tenuous at best, so they aren't in position to move pieces around to fit Rem Pitlick in.
The Habs cap situation is tenuous at best, so they aren't in position to move pieces around to fit Rem Pitlick in.
Natey
GOATS
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,327
- 8,500
Then sign him to a 1 year deal and move him. On many nights he was one of our best players.
I have a real laugh over Anderson being untouchable yet Pitlick far outperformed him.
1 year at $3M? Sure why not. He's got to prove he's worth that or next year he's unqualified and becoming a league minimum player. I'm up to challenge him.
We've got Anderson and Petry to move. We're not a good enough team to go let players like Rem walk.
He's fast and he showed some offence because the habs had literally no one else to put out there, but he's not a great player and his defense is weak. Sure, keep him, but not too much and not too long.
Paddyjack
Registered User
Natey
GOATS
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,327
- 8,500
It's 1 year. Who gives a shit?
We pay Anderson almost $6M to not put up points and skate fast while making Patrick Traverse look like a god in decision making.
lamp9post
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2007
- 4,418
- 1,681
$3M is way too much, I agree. It matters because it also raises his subsequent qualifying offers. The Habs are not in a position to throw money around on relatively unproven players like Pitlick.
I am surprised though. I thought this would be a simple contract in the range of 2-years $1.75M AAV. Didn't think Pitlick would be in a position to value himself much higher than that. I guess arbitration plays a factor.
Natey
GOATS
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,327
- 8,500
When players can score 1 goal and 4 points in over 25 games and get almost $40M what's wrong with trying to get $3M?
Who cares about his qualifying offer in 2 years if you're not going to sign him anyway??
Paddyjack
Registered User
The problem here is you are using as comparable another player that is also overpaid and part of our cap problem. You are also using goals and assists to compare them although Anderson should (in theory) brings more than just that, contrary to Pitlick. And Anderson is a multi-seasons veteran while Pitlick has about 80 games under his belt.
Like the other poster said, 1.75AAV should be a reasonable number.
I hope they keep him but honestly I can see why they'd be concerned. With the uncertainty around Price it might not be the best thing to go to arbitration with him and get stuck with a 3M award.
lamp9post
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2007
- 4,418
- 1,681
Because if you approach every negotiation with that precedent than we'll remain in perpetual cap hell.
Natey
GOATS
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,327
- 8,500
Then sign him and trade him immediately to a team not in cap hell. Most teams are going to take a chance on a 40 point player on a 1 year deal.
Letting him walk just seems like really f***ing stupid asset management.
lamp9post
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2007
- 4,418
- 1,681
He produced at roughly the same PPG pace with the Wild as he did with us and they waived him. You don't overpay a guy you picked on waivers and played with you for a half season.
FWIW I'm sure its a negotiation tactic and Pitlick will be back with a reasonable contract. He won't have the same opportunity on other teams as he will have here.
Of course it is. But there are some who purposely want stupid things done so that the chance to land on Bedard goes from 10% to 12%.
