Marc Bergevin: 5 stages of grief edition

[Hackett]

If the implication is that subban was going to take take this team further than Weber did this season, I'm not sure I buy that. I have issues with this deal, but the problems with the 2017 habs ran deeper than that.

 

[Bryson]

weber and subban were a wash in the first year. because the preds made the final isnt all because of subban. get a grip

you're right. nashville making it to the stanley cup finals the very same year they traded for subban was just a "coincidence"

 

[Doc McKenna]

you're right. nashville making it to the stanley cup finals the very same year they traded for subban was just a "coincidence"

Nope more like us washing out in the first round is just a coincidence.

 

[Doc McKenna]

If the implication is that subban was going to take take this team further than Weber did this season, I'm not sure I buy that. I have issues with this deal, but the problems with the 2017 habs ran deeper than that.

Nope our problem is we needed scoring and Bergevin who is causing the grief figured Ott, Martinson, Davidson and King would be just the offensive threats we needed to get us over the top.

 

[Bryson]

If the implication is that subban was going to take take this team further than Weber did this season, I'm not sure I buy that. I have issues with this deal, but the problems with the 2017 habs ran deeper than that.

Habs couldn't score. Subban has that extra gear during big games and a higher PPG than Weber does.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

In his 8 seasons in the NHL, Subban went to the ECF twice and to the Stanley Cup finals once. All on teams that were kinda overachieving.

At some point, you have to accept that there's a pattern and not just pure luck.

Absolutely. I think when we went with Halak it was a little more overachieving.

When we lost to rangers, I think we earned the right to be there and weren't coming from nowhere.

I'd say Nashville didn't take easy road to Finals either. I doubt they repeat next season but Subban is a very talented player. He makes his team better.

 

[Kriss E]

In my initial post, I had said that posters refused to see or project, but could do so. Clearly you can't.

You claim that other posters just aren't interesting in discussing much with you, maybe it has to do with how you respond to them? This above is a perfect example of how disrespectful you can be.
Did you ever stop for a second and think that it has nothing to do with any of that.
Why do you approach every one that has the opposite opinion with the idea that they are biased? You can imagine any scenario you want. I can see us trading for McDavid. It doesn't mean I believe it will happen.
Just like as of today, I don't believe Bergevin will be making any trades before the season starts.
This has nothing to do with not being able to ''project'' anything and leave out those petty useless comments. Stick to the talking points or just don't answer.

Is it that difficult a concept to understand that you desperately need a plausible example to discuss or is it just that you want to micro-analyze the example so you can tear it apart for something other than the mechanics of it that would involve Cap space?

I just explained in my previous post why I don't believe it would happen, so yes, give me a plausible example instead of rambling on.

I never said that we would get an upgrade at C over Galchenyuk by just offering McCarron or Juulsen. In fact, given posters' infatuation with Galchenyuk's potential, I doubt that we even could get a satisfactory upgrade for Galchenyuk at C. If we got Nugent-Hopkins from EDM, you'd rant and rave that it isn't comparable to Galchenyuk. If we got Jordan Staal, you'd do the same and so on, for countless other Cs.

I don't view it as a need to upgrade on Galchenyuk because I see Galchenyuk as the other top-6 C. I view it as getting a top-6 C as an upgrade on Danault, just to make it clear, so that we're talking about the same points.

Well then great man. I'm all for getting RNH to be upgrades over Danault. I would have been happy with Hanzal this summer, so if we could get RNH I'd be very pleased. I'm not sure why the Oilers would trade him when they just got rid of Eberle. Looks like they're going with Drai-RNH as their top 2 centers. But if we can get him to replace Danault, that'd be great.
Staal I'm not interested in. Cracked 50pts once in his career a few years back, often injured, and has 6 years at 6M..No thanks.

LafleurGuy often brings up Zetterberg, and despite his older age, I'd still be interested in him as well, and Detroit needs to shed some salary. So I guess we need to see if they want to tank and rebuild or actually make a push here.

In any event, as I said, bring up a scenario and we will discuss. This has nothing to do with shredding every name put out there, so drop that silliness and stick to the talking points.
Now, in both those cases, we were to trade with them, they'd want something in return. That is where the issue lies and why I don't see us as trading for those guys. We do not have quality prospects to make trades with them. They won't ask for Danault and Juulsen. That is my belief. I could be totally wrong here, I certainly would have never imagined we could get Vanek for Collberg either.
Alas, these moves haven't happened, and personally I don't believe they will, so until that changes I'll stick to my guns. I'll happily come back to give kudos to Bergevin if he pulls a top 2 center trade without giving much. Just like I gave him kudos for Vanek, Petry, Radu and Drouin.

 

[Scriptor]

OK so Subban on teams : 17 wins in montreal and 14 wins in Nashville.
Weber 9 Nashville and 2 Habs

Subban 31 Playoff wins in last 5 years (Including missing 2015-2016 season entirely, price and subban injured)
Weber 11 Playoff wins in last 5 years. (Including missing 2 seasons 2012-2014)

Just to simplify.

And yes I do understand they aren't the only players on the ice, but since we are comparing, lets just compare how each players team did while EACH PLAYER was on said team

Yeah, let's just do it because taking numbers out of context don't matter when they serve our purpose.

That said, I'm not arguing that Subban isn't an extremely useful player come playoff time. He definitely plays to win and can be a game changer.

 

[Belial]

Forsberg was 21 years old.

It was literally Arvidsson's rookie season.

You're focusing on those two instead of the captain? You might have had people agreeing with you if you brought up Ribeiro.

And what changes exactly?

This year Preds were a more seasoned team, it's not because PK was there instead of Weber that they did better in the PO.

It's the emergence of Arvidsson, Sissons, Forsberg, a full year of Johansen...

 

[Doc McKenna]

Yeah, let's just do it because taking numbers out of context don't matter when they serve our purpose.

That said, I'm not arguing that Subban isn't an extremely useful player come playoff time. He definitely plays to win and can be a game changer.

Wasn't me arguing about how good the preds were.

PO wins over the last 5 years:

Pens 48
Hawks 46
Rangers 36
Ducks 34
Kings 26
Sharks 26
Tampa 25
Boston 23
Caps 23
Preds 23 14 of those wins this year.
Blues 22
Habs 19

I was just highlighting when they got their most wins and when the habs did. Correlation=/= causation, but it is interesting.

 

[Wats]

Yeah we are awesome!

www.imgur.com/pXhlfH9

At least we're ahead of the Sens by 1 win and no other teams are getting better and better as years pass.

 

[Wats]

weber and subban were a wash in the first year. because the preds made the final isnt all because of subban. get a grip

If swapping Weber for Subban didn't have a big role for Nashville then hopefully you agree that the changes Bergevin made in first 4 years had no significant impact on Montreal regular season success. His acquisitions those years isn't the reason they won in regular season.

 

[Kriss E]

If the implication is that subban was going to take take this team further than Weber did this season, I'm not sure I buy that. I have issues with this deal, but the problems with the 2017 habs ran deeper than that.

I don't think he would have. I also don't think Nashville makes it to the Finals if Weber is there vs PK. The reason they were able to get there was the massive puck moving abilities they relied on from the back end. I don't think it's the same story for them without Subban.

But as I said, I don't think Subban changes much of anything for the Habs here.

 

[Rapala]

We are not able to finish teams we have no business losing to.
The Rangers twice now have simply run us down.
The issue remains a lack of Size/Speed/Talent with our skaters.
No goalie is going to overcome that gap in the post season.
regardless of how much we pay him.

 

[Hackett]

And what changes exactly?

This year Preds were a more seasoned team, it's not because PK was there instead of Weber that they did better in the PO.

It's the emergence of Arvidsson, Sissons, Forsberg, a full year of Johansen...

Their top 4 D had 50 points between them during the playoff and it was spread fairly evenly throughout. They have a great blend of what is required from today's game in their top 4D. Ideally, you want to see a bit more muscle for certain matchups (not that they are completely lacking in this regard), but the D is a big weapon overall. That combined with having a center who is capable of being a premier #1 guy is the main reason for their success, and Subban fit in very well within that mould.

By contrast, Montreal's top 4D is incomplete. Weber is fine, Petry is very solid when he is playing well, but we see stretches where he just plain sucks. Alzner is a question mark, and even if he does well, he's not going to amaze anyone with puck moving abilities. Everybody else is unproven so take your pick to round out the top 4.

Habs don't have a center like Johansen either. Best you can do at this point in time is hope for Chucky to succeed.

So while I don't like the subban deal, I don't think much changes in regards to the habs fortunes if he was there instead of weber. This club is simply much more flawed than Nashville as it stands.

 

[scrubadam]

And what changes exactly?

This year Preds were a more seasoned team, it's not because PK was there instead of Weber that they did better in the PO.

It's the emergence of Arvidsson, Sissons, Forsberg, a full year of Johansen...

And when they lost Johansen they won 2 games and were shutout back 2 back including the deciding game.

Some might say Johansen was a bigger factor in the playoffs.

 

[Miller Time]

so are people still holding out belief/hope that MB is going to pull off some late off-season blockbuster move... or has resignment set in?

pretty impressive for a GM with cap spending freedom and, supposedly, a mandate and desire to build a winner, to manage to downgrade his roster as much as MB has year over year. As bad as he's been, this offseason definitely takes the cake thus far.

 

[Doc McKenna]

And when they lost Johansen they won 2 games and were shutout back 2 back including the deciding game.

Some might say Johansen was a bigger factor in the playoffs.

Or maybe you are just ignoring that he only played 14 of their 22 playoff games. So its not like he was just missing 4 games like you are implying. Honest question? Do you even bother to look things up. I mean the BS meter was sky high. We all know he was out before the finals which was 6 games anyway. Most teams have a hard time losing their leading scorer, we likely wouldn't have won a game without radulov in the lineup this past spring.


Associated Press May 19, 2017, 5:16 PM
ANAHEIM, Calif. — Nashville centre Ryan Johansen will miss the rest of the Stanley Cup playoffs after emergency surgery on a left thigh injury, leaving the Predators without their top scorer heading into Game 5 of the Western Conference finals.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Isn't there a stage for cynism or is that just relunctant acceptance?

 

[aresknights]

I don't think he would have. I also don't think Nashville makes it to the Finals if Weber is there vs PK. The reason they were able to get there was the massive puck moving abilities they relied on from the back end. I don't think it's the same story for them without Subban.

But as I said, I don't think Subban changes much of anything for the Habs here.

Unfortunately no way to prove it.

I think Nashville ends up in the SCF with Weber in place of Subban.

And both our opinions mean jack ..... Cause its impossible to prove.

Preds were a better team all around than they had been in previous years leaving PK/SW out of it ( to argue that would be stupid imo) and had a hot tender, and got on a role after squeaking into the POs.

Subban helped the team but it wasn't a case of Subban alone carrying the team. Alot has to go right to advance in the NHL POs. And alot more went right with Preds this year than years past excluding SW/PK.

 

[Belial]

Their top 4 D had 50 points between them during the playoff and it was spread fairly evenly throughout. They have a great blend of what is required from today's game in their top 4D. Ideally, you want to see a bit more muscle for certain matchups (not that they are completely lacking in this regard), but the D is a big weapon overall. That combined with having a center who is capable of being a premier #1 guy is the main reason for their success, and Subban fit in very well within that mould.

By contrast, Montreal's top 4D is incomplete. Weber is fine, Petry is very solid when he is playing well, but we see stretches where he just plain sucks. Alzner is a question mark, and even if he does well, he's not going to amaze anyone with puck moving abilities. Everybody else is unproven so take your pick to round out the top 4.

Habs don't have a center like Johansen either. Best you can do at this point in time is hope for Chucky to succeed.

So while I don't like the subban deal, I don't think much changes in regards to the habs fortunes if he was there instead of weber. This club is simply much more flawed than Nashville as it stands.

I don't think anyone can argue about that D they got there, it's the best in the league IMO.

But they did an amazing job last year also when Weber was there, they got 29 points in 14 games between them.

What changed is their forwards that did a lot better this year than last year.

I'm not sold on their offense though.

And when they lost Johansen they won 2 games and were shutout back 2 back including the deciding game.

Some might say Johansen was a bigger factor in the playoffs.

Yeah losing Johansen killed them, they're not deep up front.

 

[scrubadam]

Or maybe you are just ignoring that he only played 14 of their 22 playoff games. So its not like he was just missing 4 games like you are implying. Honest question? Do you even bother to look things up. I mean the BS meter was sky high. We all know he was out before the finals which was 6 games anyway. Most teams have a hard time losing their leading scorer, we likely wouldn't have won a game without radulov in the lineup this past spring.


Associated Press May 19, 2017, 5:16 PM
ANAHEIM, Calif.  Nashville centre Ryan Johansen will miss the rest of the Stanley Cup playoffs after emergency surgery on a left thigh injury, leaving the Predators without their top scorer heading into Game 5 of the Western Conference finals.

And they won those 2 games without him where 5 out of 6 periods of those games were against Jonathan Bernier Anaheims backup.

The Ducks will be without No. 1 goalie John Gibson as they play to save their season Monday in Game 6 of the Western Conference finals.

Gibson, who suffered a lower-body injury in the first period of Saturday's 3-1 loss to the Predators, expressed hope he would be healthy enough to start in net and partook in morning skate Monday, lending to some optimism he would be given the green light.

PK had a great playoffs and was an important part of their run, but it wasn't all on his shoulders and plenty of Preds played an important role, especially guys like Rine and Johansen.

I think Preds have a better chance with RyJo in and PK out to injury considering they still had Josi/Ellis/Ekholm back there, but there C depth was close to habs level after RyJo. Doesn't mean PK is crap he is a very good player just like I think Weber is a good player as well.

 

[Scriptor]

You claim that other posters just aren't interesting in discussing much with you, maybe it has to do with how you respond to them? This above is a perfect example of how disrespectful you can be.
Did you ever stop for a second and think that it has nothing to do with any of that.
Why do you approach every one that has the opposite opinion with the idea that they are biased? You can imagine any scenario you want. I can see us trading for McDavid. It doesn't mean I believe it will happen.
Just like as of today, I don't believe Bergevin will be making any trades before the season starts.
This has nothing to do with not being able to ''project'' anything and leave out those petty useless comments. Stick to the talking points or just don't answer.

I just explained in my previous post why I don't believe it would happen, so yes, give me a plausible example instead of rambling on.



Well then great man. I'm all for getting RNH to be upgrades over Danault. I would have been happy with Hanzal this summer, so if we could get RNH I'd be very pleased. I'm not sure why the Oilers would trade him when they just got rid of Eberle. Looks like they're going with Drai-RNH as their top 2 centers. But if we can get him to replace Danault, that'd be great.
Staal I'm not interested in. Cracked 50pts once in his career a few years back, often injured, and has 6 years at 6M..No thanks.

LafleurGuy often brings up Zetterberg, and despite his older age, I'd still be interested in him as well, and Detroit needs to shed some salary. So I guess we need to see if they want to tank and rebuild or actually make a push here.

In any event, as I said, bring up a scenario and we will discuss. This has nothing to do with shredding every name put out there, so drop that silliness and stick to the talking points.
Now, in both those cases, we were to trade with them, they'd want something in return. That is where the issue lies and why I don't see us as trading for those guys. We do not have quality prospects to make trades with them. They won't ask for Danault and Juulsen. That is my belief. I could be totally wrong here, I certainly would have never imagined we could get Vanek for Collberg either.
Alas, these moves haven't happened, and personally I don't believe they will, so until that changes I'll stick to my guns. I'll happily come back to give kudos to Bergevin if he pulls a top 2 center trade without giving much. Just like I gave him kudos for Vanek, Petry, Radu and Drouin.

I think we can go with that and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that we're really looking at this for the sake of seeing how it might work.

The example I would make with the Oilers doesn't work perfectly because one of the two players we would end up getting in return (under the example I'll outline) only has a one-year contract left (so no buy-out beyond this year and no absolute or inevitable need for EDM to have his salary taken off their hands, other than the fact it does cost money regardless), but here goes, as a framework for how it might work, if nothing else:

Initial proposal from Bergevin:

To EDM from MTL:

Gallagher (3.75M) and De La Rose (750K, but not necessarily off the Cap if doesn't make 23-man roster, and if he had, he'd still need to be replaced with another Cap hit that might end up saving no more than 100K, as would Hudon's 650K Cap hit)

To MTL from EDM:

Nugent-Hopkins (6M)

Net impact on the Habs Cap, only 2.15M. That's the type of scenario which you suggested would have to happen and, if this were accepted, I'd be in full agreement with you that we could've signed Markov with a base salary of 6M for one year, provided that he really would have accepted a one-year contract at that amount (will never be 100% sure, but good chance he might've).

8.5M (estimated) current Cap room + 3.75M for Gallagher leaving the team + 100K for Hudon over De La Rose savings towards the Cap - 6M for 'Nuge' - 6M for Markov = 350K left over.

Add Streit's base salary (guaranteed Cap hit) of 700K that wouldn't have been given out if Markov had come back (Streit's signature with the Habs directly relatable to Markov not re-signing with the Habs, even if that's not really a full-time replacement for Markov) to the 350K left over from the current Cap space and we have a reasonable cushion of a little over 1M for the IR.

Perfect scenario. I'd be ecstatic with RNH and Markov in the fold. Don't know about other fans. While I,m happy with it, it also assumes that adding RNH is all that Bergevin had in mind as improvements. More cap room might well have been necessary to get that done as well, but let's go with the Habs having been content to re-sign Markov and land RNH for, essentially, Gallagher, for argument's sake.

Now, let's say the deal falls through because that isn't enough for RNH according to EDM and, for that return, they'd rather take their chances dealing RNH next year when they are more compelled to do so.

Maybe they get greedy and ask for Lehkonen and a first rounder instead (it's negotiations after all). They like Lehkonen's already demonstrated two-way game, think he can be a real good goal-scorer alongside McDavid and they particularly love all that for a kid on a 2nd year of an ELC with no bonuses attached to it.

Bergevin loves all those things about Lehkonen as well and thinks the promise shown by the kid makes him untouchable going forward, unless its part of a larger package for a return much greater than Nugent-Hopkins as a C.

It's a no-go for the EDM counter offer.

Bergevin comes back by sweetening the pot with one of his 2nd rounders for the 2018 draft, risking going without a 2nd rounder if Sergachev doesn't make the roster for 40 games or more in TB this year.

That looks like a more than fair offer from Bergevin ( IMO, anyhow ).

It gives EDM an established NHL winger in Gallagher (who is EDM-born) that has 20+-goal potential, will bring energy throughout the line-up, regardless of where he is used and can fill in right away at wing where EDM might have used RNH if they had decided to do that this year instead of at C (with Strome taking his place). It also gives EDM a big-bodied, defensive C in De La Rose that can be groomed to eventually play the shutdown role that RNH had been playing as the third C behind McDavid and Draisaitl of late (all at a more than reasonable Cap hit). It also hands EDM a 2nd round pick to offset a little the fact that EDM would be trading a top 1st round pick in RNH.

In return, MTL gets a much needed top-6 C, with the expectation that, with more ice time of a better quality, alongside great wingers, and a prominent role on the PP, he will return to past performances on Offense and continue to progress from there.

The thing is that EDM knows that MTL is rather desperately in the need for such a C and what helps make the trade more palatable to them is Montreal's ability to absorb some toxic salary which they currently have.

EDM refuses to make the trade if it doesn't include Fayne's salary (and Cap hit) as part of the trade. That's 2.725M more towards the Habs' Cap if they bury his salary in the minors and get the 900K Cap relief, I believe, for doing so.

That's 2.725M less for Markov, which still wouldn't have been a problem, in this scenario, if he'd agreed to take a bonus-laden contract with some Cap hit capable of being differed to next season when the Fayne and Markov contracts would both be off the books. The Fayne contract off the books would serve to pay the differed amount in bonuses and the 3M or so base salary gone with Markov not being renewed would serve to cover contract extensions to Danault (who could be signed long term at a better price from the get-go by ponying up a little more money now, instead of going the bridge contract route which most of us despise), McCarron and, maybe, Davidson.

Not trading for Schlemko and his 2,1M Cap hit would not have solved the 2.75M Cap shortcoming for this season, even if it looks like it comes close (shave 650K off the Injury Reserve and get it down to 400K?). We still would have to have added a salary to replace Schlemko, and all available options are more than 400K in Cap hit.

It's not impossible to pull something off through creative personnel moves that list as low as a 21-Man roster, but now we're not in the territory of looking to see if a move requiring Cap space would have made it possible to sign Markov as well. With all the required moves and non-signatures, we'd really be in a dynamic where the real objective for Bergevin was, above all, to sign Markov. I don't think these were the parameters we were discussing.

I know it's long exposé, but it shows the mechanics of how Cap space can perhaps get a deal done where it might otherwise not get done, and that's considering a not so large toxic Cap hit passed on by our trading partner. I'm not here to sell the value of Gallagher, De La Rose and a 2nd rounder for RNH and Fayne. What's important is the dynamics at work, so arguing semantics about which player is worth this or not worth that is a waste of time, IMO.

Other teams might be willing to take less in return for a coveted (but expensive) C, but would have a larger toxic contract, perhaps extending longer than one season, to move in exchange for taking less than one of our top forwards (Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, Drouin) and agreeing to take more/better draft picks, along with Gallagher and a prospect, or whatever.

I'll take the time to study the team lineups for such possibilities and come back with more direct (and shorter) proposals when I have the time to do so.

Some teams have more depth at C than we do, but don't get as much spending liberties as we do because of the market they play in -- they aren't spending to the Cap ceiling, or would prefer some breathing room if they could get it.

There could be some opportunities out there for Bergevin that aren't so obvious at a glance and may require the Cap flexibility to get them done.

I also don't believe that a team would give a valuable C, even if they were deep enough at C to part with him, without asking for a more established NHL roster player in return and I know that it would mean salary/Cap hit heading the other way, and I think that I've covered that in my off the top example. However, in the same way, we can't just assume that EDM or any other team trading a C to Montreal would just gladly take Plekanec's 6M contract off our hands, just because it would've helped keep Markov and land a top-6C at the same time.

Also, on the surface, I like the idea of a stop-gap C like Zetterberg that could perhaps be acquired for not much in return, mostly because it would've allowed to re-sign Markov, but both Markov and Zetterberg are short term fixes and I would prefer a younger, longer term fix at C to maximize Price's and Weber's remaining good years, instead of needing to find another solution at C with Price and Weber at least two years older. I'm also not certain that a solution at C from within would've popped up in the meantime to help make such a move more palatable.

As you said about giving Kudos to Bergevin if he pulls off what you believe to be impossible, I'll be the first to call him out if he doesn't manage to improve the team and use the Cap space remaining appropriately. Mind you, I don't think he will wave a magic wand either and instantly turn this team into a Cup favourite by spending the Cap room, but if he doesn't improve the team at C in a concrete fashion, the melodrama surrounding the failure to re-sign Markov and/or Radulov will have been a complete waste of time and demonstrate that Bergevin may have been out of his depth with the priorities he set forth at the end of this last season.

I'll just wait and see just how much the Habs' GM manages to disappoint me or, hopefully, he'll manage to pull something off that will make watching the team all that more exciting and have posters on these boards discuss potentialities for the team instead of an epic fail by its GM.

 

[PaulD]

The Hockey News
✔
@TheHockeyNews

#NHL teams: Wins over past five seasons

Pens 228
Blues 227
Ducks 227
Hawks 227
Caps 221
Rangers 218
Habs 210
Bruins 209
Sharks 208

List play off wins and it will be even clearer how easily beaten these Canadiens are.

 

[PaulD]

I think we can go with that and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that we're really looking at this for the sake of seeing how it might work.

The example I would make with the Oilers doesn't work perfectly because one of the two players we would end up getting in return (under the example I'll outline) only has a one-year contract left (so no buy-out beyond this year and no absolute or inevitable need for EDM to have his salary taken off their hands, other than the fact it does cost money regardless), but here goes, as a framework for how it might work, if nothing else:



Initial proposal from Bergevin:

To EDM from MTL:

Gallagher (3.75M) and De La Rose (750K, but not necessarily off the Cap if doesn't make 23-man roster, and if he had, he'd still need to be replaced with another Cap hit that might end up saving no more than 100K, as would Hudon's 650K Cap hit)

To MTL from EDM:

Nugent-Hopkins (6M)

Net impact on the Habs Cap, only 2.15M. That's the type of scenario which you suggested would have to happen and, if this were accepted, I'd be in full agreement with you that we could've signed Markov with a base salary of 6M for one year, provided that he really would have accepted a one-year contract at that amount (will never be 100% sure, but good chance he might've).

8.5M (estimated) current Cap room + 3.75M for Gallagher leaving the team + 100K for Hudon over De La Rose savings towards the Cap - 6M for 'Nuge' - 6M for Markov = 350K left over.

Add Streit's base salary (guaranteed Cap hit) of 700K that wouldn't have been given out if Markov had come back (Streit's signature with the Habs directly relatable to Markov not re-signing with the Habs, even if that's not really a full-time replacement for Markov) to the 350K left over from the current Cap space and we have a reasonable cushion of a little over 1M for the IR.

Perfect scenario. I'd be ecstatic with RNH and Markov in the fold. Don't know about other fans. While I,m happy with it, it also assumes that adding RNH is all that Bergevin had in mind as improvements. More cap room might well have been necessary to get that done as well, but let's go with the Habs having been content to re-sign Markov and land RNH for, essentially, Gallagher, for argument's sake.

Now, let's say the deal falls through because that isn't enough for RNH according to EDM and, for that return, they'd rather take their chances dealing RNH next year when they are more compelled to do so.

Maybe they get greedy and ask for Lehkonen and a first rounder instead (it's negotiations after all). They like Lehkonen's already demonstrated two-way game, think he can be a real good goal-scorer alongside McDavid and they particularly love all that for a kid on a 2nd year of an ELC with no bonuses attached to it.

Bergevin loves all those things about Lehkonen as well and thinks the promise shown by the kid makes him untouchable going forward, unless its part of a larger package for a return much greater than Nugent-Hopkins as a C.

It's a no-go for the EDM counter offer.

Bergevin comes back by sweetening the pot with one of his 2nd rounders for the 2018 draft, risking going without a 2nd rounder if Sergachev doesn't make the roster for 40 games or more in TB this year.

That looks like a more than fair offer from Bergevin ( IMO, anyhow ).

It gives EDM an established NHL winger in Gallagher (who is EDM-born) that has 20+-goal potential, will bring energy throughout the line-up, regardless of where he is used and can fill in right away at wing where EDM might have used RNH if they had decided to do that this year instead of at C (with Strome taking his place). It also gives EDM a big-bodied, defensive C in De La Rose that can be groomed to eventually play the shutdown role that RNH had been playing as the third C behind McDavid and Draisaitl of late (all at a more than reasonable Cap hit). It also hands EDM a 2nd round pick to offset a little the fact that EDM would be trading a top 1st round pick in RNH.

In return, MTL gets a much needed top-6 C, with the expectation that, with more ice time of a better quality, alongside great wingers, and a prominent role on the PP, he will return to past performances on Offense and continue to progress from there.

The thing is that EDM knows that MTL is rather desperately in the need for such a C and what helps make the trade more palatable to them is Montreal's ability to absorb some toxic salary which they currently have.

EDM refuses to make the trade if it doesn't include Fayne's salary (and Cap hit) as part of the trade. That's 2.725M more towards the Habs' Cap if they bury his salary in the minors and get the 900K Cap relief, I believe, for doing so.

That's 2.725M less for Markov, which still wouldn't have been a problem, in this scenario, if he'd agreed to take a bonus-laden contract with some Cap hit capable of being differed to next season when the Fayne and Markov contracts would both be off the books. The Fayne contract off the books would serve to pay the differed amount in bonuses and the 3M or so base salary gone with Markov not being renewed would serve to cover contract extensions to Danault (who could be signed long term at a better price from the get-go by ponying up a little more money now, instead of going the bridge contract route which most of us despise), McCarron and, maybe, Davidson.

Not trading for Schlemko and his 2,1M Cap hit would not have solved the 2.75M Cap shortcoming for this season, even if it looks like it comes close (shave 650K off the Injury Reserve and get it down to 400K?). We still would have to have added a salary to replace Schlemko, and all available options are more than 400K in Cap hit.

It's not impossible to pull something off through creative personnel moves that list as low as a 21-Man roster, but now we're not in the territory of looking to see if a move requiring Cap space would have made it possible to sign Markov as well. With all the required moves and non-signatures, we'd really be in a dynamic where the real objective for Bergevin was, above all, to sign Markov. I don't think these were the parameters we were discussing.

I know it's long exposé, but it shows the mechanics of how Cap space can perhaps get a deal done where it might otherwise not get done, and that's considering a not so large toxic Cap hit passed on by our trading partner. I'm not here to sell the value of Gallagher, De La Rose and a 2nd rounder for RNH and Fayne. What's important is the dynamics at work, so arguing semantics about which player is worth this or not worth that is a waste of time, IMO.

Other teams might be willing to take less in return for a coveted (but expensive) C, but would have a larger toxic contract, perhaps extending longer than one season, to move in exchange for taking less than one of our top forwards (Pacioretty, Galchenyuk, Drouin) and agreeing to take more/better draft picks, along with Gallagher and a prospect, or whatever.

I'll take the time to study the team lineups for such possibilities and come back with more direct (and shorter) proposals when I have the time to do so.

Some teams have more depth at C than we do, but don't get as much spending liberties as we do because of the market they play in -- they aren't spending to the Cap ceiling, or would prefer some breathing room if they could get it.

There could be some opportunities out there for Bergevin that aren't so obvious at a glance and may require the Cap flexibility to get them done.

I also don't believe that a team would give a valuable C, even if they were deep enough at C to part with him, without asking for a more established NHL roster player in return and I know that it would mean salary/Cap hit heading the other way, and I think that I've covered that in my off the top example. However, in the same way, we can't just assume that EDM or any other team trading a C to Montreal would just gladly take Plekanec's 6M contract off our hands, just because it would've helped keep Markov and land a top-6C at the same time.

Also, on the surface, I like the idea of a stop-gap C like Zetterberg that could perhaps be acquired for not much in return, mostly because it would've allowed to re-sign Markov, but both Markov and Zetterberg are short term fixes and I would prefer a younger, longer term fix at C to maximize Price's and Weber's remaining good years, instead of needing to find another solution at C with Price and Weber at least two years older. I'm also not certain that a solution at C from within would've popped up in the meantime to help make such a move more palatable.

As you said about giving Kudos to Bergevin if he pulls off what you believe to be impossible, I'll be the first to call him out if he doesn't manage to improve the team and use the Cap space remaining appropriately. Mind you, I don't think he will wave a magic wand either and instantly turn this team into a Cup favourite by spending the Cap room, but if he doesn't improve the team at C in a concrete fashion, the melodrama surrounding the failure to re-sign Markov and/or Radulov will have been a complete waste of time and demonstrate that Bergevin may have been out of his depth with the priorities he set forth at the end of this last season.

I'll just wait and see just how much the Habs' GM manages to disappoint me or, hopefully, he'll manage to pull something off that will make watching the team all that more exciting and have posters on these boards discuss potentialities for the team instead of an epic fail by its GM.

As already pointed out after your earlier "wait and see" posts

MB has had six summers.....SPLAT !

No mystery here. He peaked at his own level of incompetence long ago.