The no man's land

[Habs Halifax]

What you read said that contracts could sometimes slide if a player was 18 or 19 (with a bunch of complicated rules). Since they will be 20 in 2019-20, the contracts can't slide.

If a player who is signed to an entry-level contract and is 18 or 19 years of age (as of September 15 of the signing year), does not play in a minimum of 10 NHL games (including both regular season and playoffs; AHL games do not count), their contract is considered to ‘slide’, or extend, by one year. For example, if a player signed an ELC for three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-2018, and their contract slides, their contract is now effective from 2016-17 to 2018-19. An exception to this rule is that if the player is 19 on September 15 of the first year of their contract, and turns 20 between September 16 and December 31, their contract does not slide.
Because signing bonuses are paid regardless of a slide, the bonuses paid on the slide year no longer count to the players remaining cap hit. The cap hit therefore changes - the players salary is averaged without the signing bonus."

Read the Blue part. This is the signing year right when they say "first year of their contract". This is the part I'm not 100% sure on.

 

[BaseballCoach]

If a player who is signed to an entry-level contract and is 18 or 19 years of age (as of September 15 of the signing year), does not play in a minimum of 10 NHL games (including both regular season and playoffs; AHL games do not count), their contract is considered to ‘slide’, or extend, by one year. For example, if a player signed an ELC for three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-2018, and their contract slides, their contract is now effective from 2016-17 to 2018-19. An exception to this rule is that if the player is 19 on September 15 of the first year of their contract, and turns 20 between September 16 and December 31, their contract does not slide.
Because signing bonuses are paid regardless of a slide, the bonuses paid on the slide year no longer count to the players remaining cap hit. The cap hit therefore changes - the players salary is averaged without the signing bonus."

Read the Blue part. This is the signing year right when they say "first year of their contract". This is the part I'm not 100% sure on.

But this exception in BLUE only applies if the rule applies in the first place, and the rule only applies if the GREEN part is true.

If you were right and I were wrong, then EVERY player who signs at 18 and starts in the minors at age 20 would have a contract that slid. Example Michael McNiven. McNiven's contract did not slide last year.

 

[Habs Halifax]

What you read said that contracts could sometimes slide if a player was 18 or 19 (with a bunch of complicated rules). Since they will be 20 in 2019-20, the contracts can't slide.

You might be getting confused by UFA rules.

Because Suzuki's birthday is after July 1st, he will turn UFA on June 30 2027, which is his 8th pro season, unless he burns next year by playing 40 games in the NHL.

This little tidbit means that Kotkaniemi will become UFA THREE years earlier than he might have had he played his first 40 games in 1921-22. He will be one of the very few players to ever become UFA at age 24, unless he signs a contract before then that carries beyond June 2025.

You haven't convinced me yet. I know Kotkaniemi situation well, no need to talk about him.

It's Suzuki and Brook. The part I'm not sure of is they did not turn 20 in the season where they signed their contract. So this tells me their contracts will slide until they play 10 NHL games. Are you assuming it to be it will not slide cause of the age of when they turned pro which is after the signing year?

 

[Habs Halifax]

But this exception in BLUE only applies if the rule applies in the first place, and the rule only applies if the GREEN part is true.

If you were right and I were wrong, then EVERY player who signs as 18 and starts in the minors at age 20 would have a contract that slid. For example Juulsen. But Juulsen's contract did not slide last year!

Juulsen contract did not slide cause he played more than 10 NHL games last year. Not saying you are wrong, but I'm not convinced.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Juulsen contract did not slide cause he played more than 10 NHL games last year. Not saying you are wrong, but I'm not convinced

I changed the example to McNiven. It did not slide either, and he played zero NHL games.

You're wrong on this. Contracts CANNOT SLIDE in a year where the player is older than 19, period.

The McNiven example should convince you (and the thousands of other normal cases like him!!)

Please re-read the GREEN PART that I highlighted for you!

 

[Habs Halifax]

I changed the example to McNiven. It did not slide either, and he played zero NHL games.

You're wrong on this. Contracts CANNOT SLIDE in a year where the player is older than 19, period.

OK... I found an example that fits what you are saying. Hudon (and McNiven like you said). He did not play more than 10 NHL games in 14/15 and his contract did not slide. I agree now.

It's just the way it's written. "It says the exception is if they turn 20 in their signing year" It should add another sentence saying what you said... contracts can not slide regardless of signing date once the player is older than 19.

 

[BaseballCoach]

OK... I found an example that fits what you are saying. Hudon (and McNiven like you said). He did not play more than 10 NHL games in 14/15 and his contract did not slide. I agree now.

It's just the way it's written. It says the exception is if they turn 20 in their signing year. It should add another sentence saying what you said... contracts can not slide regardless of signing date once the player is older than 19.

They don't need to add another sentence.

The thing reads

If a player who is signed to an entry-level contract and is 18 or 19 years of age (as of September 15 of the signing year), does not play in a minimum of 10 NHL games (including both regular season and playoffs; AHL games do not count), their contract is considered to ‘slide’, or extend, by one year. For example, if a player signed an ELC for three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-2018, and their contract slides, their contract is now effective from 2016-17 to 2018-19. An exception to this rule is that if the player is 19 on September 15 of the first year of their contract, and turns 20 between September 16 and December 31, their contract does not slide.
Because signing bonuses are paid regardless of a slide, the bonuses paid on the slide year no longer count to the players remaining cap hit. The cap hit therefore changes - the players salary is averaged without the signing bonus.

 

[Habs Halifax]

They don't need to add another sentence.

The thing reads

If a player who is signed to an entry-level contract and is 18 or 19 years of age (as of September 15 of the signing year), does not play in a minimum of 10 NHL games (including both regular season and playoffs; AHL games do not count), their contract is considered to ‘slide’, or extend, by one year. For example, if a player signed an ELC for three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-2018, and their contract slides, their contract is now effective from 2016-17 to 2018-19. An exception to this rule is that if the player is 19 on September 15 of the first year of their contract, and turns 20 between September 16 and December 31, their contract does not slide.
Because signing bonuses are paid regardless of a slide, the bonuses paid on the slide year no longer count to the players remaining cap hit. The cap hit therefore changes - the players salary is averaged without the signing bonus.

My father is a lawyer and I have seen many battles on written law that leaves room for assumption, I think this is not very clear and leaves room for assuming. I don't have a problem with the green part. It's the blue part I have a problem with. Maybe there is another part of the CBA that clarifies this further and I'm sure there is. I found this on Gap Friendly so it's likely a cherry picked clause and omits other written law within the CBA.

In this clause, there is an assumption that all contracts will not slide after the age of 19 regardless of signing date but it is not written that way. The exception talks about what age they are from Sept - Dec "of the first year of their contract". It is not 100% clear in this clause that all contracts can not slide after the age of 19 regardless of signing date.

Why not rewrite it to say this.. The exception to this rule is if the player turns 20 from September 16 or later of the first year of their contract. What's the point of putting the Dec 31 part? See my point? What's the difference if the player turns 20 on Dec 31 or Jan 1? I don't see any. They Dec 31st part is what lead me astray

Regardless, thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Lshap]

The fact he’s a RHD adds value exponentially as well. If Muzzin was able to get a first and two decent prospects, the price tag on Petry has to be enormous. Dubas said the price for a RHD was too high, and that may be the problem with trading a guy like Petry right now. Teams won’t want to pay up and Bergevin will simply see it as he’s worth more to the team then in any trade, which is probably true.

Which is why the best value for Petry will only happen in the summer. Trade deadline buyers are mostly useless for us because they have late-round draft picks. No point in losing Petry for a 20th-plus pick. Getting a good roster player is out because buyers need their best pieces for the playoffs. So what's left that the Habs could use? Maybe there's a highly ranked prospect in another team's system, like Suzuki. If not, then the smart move is to wait for the off season and talk to the 8 to 10 teams who have high draft picks and are hoping to compete next year.

I get the temptation to keep Petry -- he's been so good that it's easy to imagine him maintaining that level for another few years. That perception is exactly why he should be traded now, because there's a good chance he won't be this good in a year and there's a 100% chance he and his contract will be a year older. Jump on this season's perception this summer, because in a year GMs will pay a little less, and a year later less still. Even if he doesn't regress at all, he's worth less at 32 with one year left, and even less at 33 with an expiring contract.

 

[BaseballCoach]

My father is a lawyer and I have seen many battles on written law that leaves room for assumption, I think this is not very clear and leaves room for assuming. I don't have a problem with the green part. It's the blue part I have a problem with. Maybe there is another part of the CBA that clarifies this further and I'm sure there is. I found this on Gap Friendly so it's likely a cherry picked clause and omits other written law within the CBA.

In this clause, there is an assumption that all contracts will not slide after the age of 19 regardless of signing date but it is not written that way. The exception talks about what age they are from Sept - Dec "of the first year of their contract". It is not 100% clear in this clause that all contracts can not slide after the age of 19 regardless of signing date.

Why not rewrite it to say this.. The exception to this rule is if the player turns 20 from September 16 or later of the first year of their contract. What's the point of putting the Dec 31 part? See my point? What's the difference if the player turns 20 on Dec 31 or Jan 1? I don't see any. They Dec 31st part is what lead me astray

Regardless, thanks for pointing this out.

Nothing needs to be rewritten. If the person turned 20 after Dec 31st they are still nineteen and don't qualify for the exception. But the key error you made but are refusing to take responsibility for and blaming others for, is this: The blue part talks about the exception to THIS RULE. Now, THIS RULE is a rule that applies ONLY to players who are 18 or 19 (I even bolded it in GREEN for you a couple of times). It is only in your own head that you thought it could apply to 20 year olds like Hudon, McNiven and thousands of other normal, every day examples.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Which is why the best value for Petry will only happen in the summer. Trade deadline buyers are mostly useless for us because they have late-round
draft picks. No point in losing Petry for a 20th-plus pick. Getting a good roster player is out because buyers need their best pieces for the playoffs. So what's left that the Habs could use? Maybe there's a highly ranked prospect in another team's system, like Suzuki. If not, then the smart move is to wait for the off season and talk to the 8 to 10 teams who have high draft picks and are hoping to compete next year.

I get the temptation to keep Petry -- he's been so good that it's easy to imagine him maintaining that level for another few years. That perception is exactly why he should be traded now, because there's a good chance he won't be this good in a year and there's a 100% chance he and his contract will be a year older. Jump on this season's perception this summer, because in a year GMs will pay a little less, and a year later less still. Even if he doesn't regress at all, he's worth less at 32 with one year left, and even less at 33 with an expiring contract.

Did Calgary think that way with Giordano at Petry's age? No. Teams that hope to compete don't look to move their good players without a very good reason.

Anyone can be traded, this is not emotional. But Petry should be considered a higher than normal priority to move if either:

• the Habs will DEFINITELY not be competitive DURING his contract AND he is considered unlikely to extend for a reasonable cost; OR
• Fleury or Brook or another player has emerged and PROVEN himself, causing a surplus of EXCELLENT top-2 pairing RHD

 

[ECWHSWI]

True but we also have Mete, Juulsen, Fleury, Brook, and Romanov coming on D.

changes nothing
they're not part of D right now.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Nothing needs to be rewritten. If the person turned 20 after Dec 31st they are still nineteen and don't qualify for the exception. But the key error you made but are refusing to take responsibility for and blaming others for, is this: The blue part talks about the exception to THIS RULE. Now, THIS RULE is a rule that applies ONLY to players who are 18 or 19 (I even bolded it in GREEN for you a couple of times). It is only in your own head that you thought it could apply to 20 year olds like Hudon, McNiven and thousands of other normal, every day examples.

I'm not blaming anybody. Relax. It's a interpretation thing. The Hudon and McNiven situation clarifies it cause we have evidence to prove it. But if we did not have evidence to prove based on past examples, I do think that clause leaves room for interpretation. I believe that clause can be re-written to be more clear.

 

[Habs Halifax]

changes nothing
they're not part of D right now.

I disagree it changes nothing. Top prospects create roster turnover as time moves forward. Not all turn into who we want them to be but not all turn into Tinordi either. Juulsen, Mete, Brook, Fleury, Romanov are very good prospects trending well in their draft plus development years.

 

[Lshap]

Did Calgary think that way with Giordano at Petry's age? No. Teams that hope to compete don't look to move their good players without a very good reason.

Anyone can be traded, this is not emotional. But Petry should be considered a higher than normal priority to move if either:

• the Habs will DEFINITELY not be competitive DURING his contract AND he is considered unlikely to extend for a reasonable cost; OR
• Fleury or Brook or another player has emerged and PROVEN himself, causing a surplus of EXCELLENT top-2 pairing RHD

I'd vote for your first bullet point, with a qualifier -- the Habs won't be competitive ENOUGH during Petry's contract. As much as I'd love to magically become an elite team next year, I don't believe we'll have the critical mass of elite talent to match the league's best. Good? Yes. Contender? No. My unemotional prediction has the Habs hovering around the same level next year. Some young players progress, a couple of players regress, and once again we're good, not great. If so, Petry helps us remain in the playoffs, but neither he nor any existing prospect pushes us into that top tier of teams.

Given that scenario, I'd rather bulk up for two/three seasons from now. That means taking one step backwards this year to move two steps forward later.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I'd vote for your first bullet point, with a qualifier -- the Habs won't be competitive ENOUGH during Petry's contract. As much as I'd love to magically become an elite team next year, I don't believe we'll have the critical mass of elite talent to match the league's best. Good? Yes. Contender? No. My unemotional prediction has the Habs hovering around the same level next year. Some young players progress, a couple of players regress, and once again we're good, not great. If so, Petry helps us remain in the playoffs, but neither he nor any existing prospect pushes us into that top tier of teams.

Given that scenario, I'd rather bulk up for two/three seasons from now. That means taking one step backwards this year to move two steps forward later.

The NHL doesn't work that way. You can decide to not compete for the rest of a given year, and to think the next year is unlikely.

But given we started a reset this past summer, we have to continue FORWARDS now, not start over.

Petry is a big part of the present moving forward. If we don't think we are contender based on zero moves next year, I kind of agree. However, if I owned the team, I would charge my GM with putting us into contention position with this group, with no important contracts turning UFA prior to June 2021.

If he falters, we have our first pick next year to help re-kickstart a new reset, under a new GM.

 

[scrubadam]

I'd vote for your first bullet point, with a qualifier -- the Habs won't be competitive ENOUGH during Petry's contract. As much as I'd love to magically become an elite team next year, I don't believe we'll have the critical mass of elite talent to match the league's best. Good? Yes. Contender? No. My unemotional prediction has the Habs hovering around the same level next year. Some young players progress, a couple of players regress, and once again we're good, not great. If so, Petry helps us remain in the playoffs, but neither he nor any existing prospect pushes us into that top tier of teams.

Given that scenario, I'd rather bulk up for two/three seasons from now. That means taking one step backwards this year to move two steps forward later.

Meh Pens are on the way down might not even make the playoffs this year. Wash has 1 cup that took them 14 years of losing to get don't have much trust in them to be a powerhouse for years to come especially as Ovie/Backstrom get older. CBJ will lose Panarian and maybe even Bob, good team but not complete. NYI are better without JT but are they elite?

Toronto has yet to win 1 round with their new core call me when they can win a series. BOS, I will take Montreal v Boston in the playoffs any day of the week. Doesn't matter if we are the underdog Boston v Montreal you throw out the regular season. FLA/BUF maybe they can make the playoffs more than once a decade before we crown them as cup champs.

That leaves TB which is the class of the league. So if you want to judge the habs against TB then every other team might as well throw in the towel right now because no one matches up to them.

If we can add a forward up front and a top 4 LD the habs can compete. This isn't 2014 anymore with MT coaching the team. We barely have any players left from that era. The habs are one of the top scoring teams 5v5 this year, if we had a functional PP we would probably be a top 5 GF team. If Weber played from day 1 we probably are top 5 GA as well.

Or we can throw everything away and hope that some miracle in 3 to 4 years all our players will break out at the same time, and that we will be able to find 4 or 5 depth players like the Petry's, Byrons, Shaws, Armias, Tatars etc.... Or more likely we become like FLA or BUF or ARZ or EDM all the other teams that have sucked for multiple years. Tanking? Tell me how much LA tanked this year or PHI tanked this year. Teams that don't try to tank end up tanking so planning to lose isn't even a gurantee. You can do your best to make your team as horrible as possible but someone else out there will probably be worse then you. NYR probably thought it was in the bag to get the number 1 pick but they didn't count on LA/PHI/NJD/CHI somehow being worse than them even though all those teams were trying to make the playoffs this year.

 

[Lshap]

The NHL doesn't work that way. You can decide to not compete for the rest of a given year, and to think the next year is unlikely.

But given we started a reset this past summer, we have to continue FORWARDS now, not start over.

Petry is a big part of the present moving forward. If we don't think we are contender based on zero moves next year, I kind of agree. However, if I owned the team, I would charge my GM with putting us into contention position with this group, with no important contracts turning UFA prior to June 2021.

If he falters, we have our first pick next year to help re-kickstart a new reset, under a new GM.

This roster probably cannot become a contender without more high-end talent. The chances of accomplishing that via the UFA market is very slim. The chances of a big-move hockey trade is dubious, since we'd have to give as much as we get. Given Bergevin's track record and our particular market, I don't see us adding a star player through any avenue except by drafting and growing one ourselves. Sure, if Bergevin manages to sign Erik Karlsson, Panarin, or Stone, then I'd agree with you and would support going all-in. However, if we can't attract those high end players I don't see our team reaching high enough.

Which is why it makes sense to jettison a couple of vets to better position ourselves for two/three years from now. Petry is not getting better and younger. The part that "doesn't work that way" is the idea that a 31-year old player will duplicate his career season and play at that level for the next few years. I love Petry and don't want to lose him, but he could bring us a valuable prospect who could surpass Petry's own contribution in a few short years. I'd rather gamble on that near-future roster made up of more high picks and current prospects. Our current roster can be pretty good, but the path to great looks unreachable. But again, if a top UFA ends up wearing a Habs jersey this summer then I'll definitely rethink.

 

[scrubadam]

This roster probably cannot become a contender without more high-end talent. The chances of accomplishing that via the UFA market is very slim. The chances of a big-move hockey trade is dubious, since we'd have to give as much as we get. Given Bergevin's track record and our particular market, I don't see us adding a star player through any avenue except by drafting and growing one ourselves. Sure, if Bergevin manages to sign Erik Karlsson, Panarin, or Stone, then I'd agree with you and would support going all-in. However, if we can't attract those high end players I don't see our team reaching high enough.

Which is why it makes sense to jettison a couple of vets to better position ourselves for two/three years from now. Petry is not getting better and younger. The part that "doesn't work that way" is the idea that a 31-year old player will duplicate his career season and play at that level for the next few years. I love Petry and don't want to lose him, but he could bring us a valuable prospect who could surpass Petry's own contribution in a few short years. I'd rather gamble on that near-future roster made up of more high picks and current prospects. Our current roster can be pretty good, but the path to great looks unreachable. But again, if a top UFA ends up wearing a Habs jersey this summer then I'll definitely rethink.

Is trading Petry really going to make the habs bad enough to get a top 5 pick? I know Petry is a good player for us and he played a huge role when Weber was out, but removing Petry from this team does not make them bottom 5. I don't see any scenario where trading Petry leads to the habs getting an elite talent. Muzzin didn't return an elite talent and yes Petry is better but he isn't Hedman here teams aren't going to throw us top 5 picks or their best prospect for Petry.

So think of a better plan then derp derp lets lose for a few years and then voila like magic we are the Pens. Even if your plan is to lose tell me how you can overcome teams like LA/CHI/PHI/NJD that had 0 plan to lose this year and still are at the bottom of the league. The Ranges out right said they were tanking this year and still are sitting in 9th and probably outside a top 5 pick. Its hard to be a loser when even winners can out tank you.

And finally let me know the great players the Oilers turned our 2nd and 4th into that has lead them to cups and contending 3/4 years after they traded him. And that was when Petry was younger!

 

[Lshap]

Meh Pens are on the way down might not even make the playoffs this year. Wash has 1 cup that took them 14 years of losing to get don't have much trust in them to be a powerhouse for years to come especially as Ovie/Backstrom get older. CBJ will lose Panarian and maybe even Bob, good team but not complete. NYI are better without JT but are they elite?

Toronto has yet to win 1 round with their new core call me when they can win a series. BOS, I will take Montreal v Boston in the playoffs any day of the week. Doesn't matter if we are the underdog Boston v Montreal you throw out the regular season. FLA/BUF maybe they can make the playoffs more than once a decade before we crown them as cup champs.

That leaves TB which is the class of the league. So if you want to judge the habs against TB then every other team might as well throw in the towel right now because no one matches up to them.

If we can add a forward up front and a top 4 LD the habs can compete. This isn't 2014 anymore with MT coaching the team. We barely have any players left from that era. The habs are one of the top scoring teams 5v5 this year, if we had a functional PP we would probably be a top 5 GF team. If Weber played from day 1 we probably are top 5 GA as well.

Or we can throw everything away and hope that some miracle in 3 to 4 years all our players will break out at the same time, and that we will be able to find 4 or 5 depth players like the Petry's, Byrons, Shaws, Armias, Tatars etc.... Or more likely we become like FLA or BUF or ARZ or EDM all the other teams that have sucked for multiple years. Tanking? Tell me how much LA tanked this year or PHI tanked this year. Teams that don't try to tank end up tanking so planning to lose isn't even a gurantee. You can do your best to make your team as horrible as possible but someone else out there will probably be worse then you. NYR probably thought it was in the bag to get the number 1 pick but they didn't count on LA/PHI/NJD/CHI somehow being worse than them even though all those teams were trying to make the playoffs this year.

"Throw everything away"? Who said that? I advocated trading one player, not because this team isn't good now, but because it can be closer to the top in the near future if we add the most valuable commodity: Young high-end talent. Sure, we can get high end talent other ways if we trade/sign for an established top Dman and forward. However, writing those two deals on our to-do list is easy; making them happen is a different story. How often are the Habs winners in the UFA sweepstakes? Which of our top players would you suggest trading away in order to get a top player in return? There's no free ride to high-end talent. That's why almost every winning team is stocked with players they've picked and nurtured themselves.

You think banking on top picks is hoping for a miracle; I think expecting top UFAs to sign here is equally miraculous. Man, would I love Erik Karlsson here... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Lshap]

Is trading Petry really going to make the habs bad enough to get a top 5 pick? I know Petry is a good player for us and he played a huge role when Weber was out, but removing Petry from this team does not make them bottom 5. I don't see any scenario where trading Petry leads to the habs getting an elite talent. Muzzin didn't return an elite talent and yes Petry is better but he isn't Hedman here teams aren't going to throw us top 5 picks or their best prospect for Petry.

So think of a better plan then derp derp lets lose for a few years and then voila like magic we are the Pens. Even if your plan is to lose tell me how you can overcome teams like LA/CHI/PHI/NJD that had 0 plan to lose this year and still are at the bottom of the league. The Ranges out right said they were tanking this year and still are sitting in 9th and probably outside a top 5 pick. Its hard to be a loser when even winners can out tank you.

And finally let me know the great players the Oilers turned our 2nd and 4th into that has lead them to cups and contending 3/4 years after they traded him. And that was when Petry was younger!

No, don't trade Petry now. Forget the frikkin trade deadline. Let's play out this season with our roster intact and enjoy the playoffs, no matter how short a run. Then in the summer trade up in the draft by leveraging Petry. A few teams like NYR, LA are rebuilding and don't need vets, but many other bottom teams are finished rebuilding and want to compete. Offer a great #2 Dman like Petry in exchange for their 1st round pick. Add more if the pick is top-5. There are ways to approach this.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I disagree it changes nothing. Top prospects create roster turnover as time moves forward. Not all turn into who we want them to be but not all turn into Tinordi either. Juulsen, Mete, Brook, Fleury, Romanov are very good prospects trending well in their draft plus development years.

disagree all you want, future players changes aboslutely nothing to the -> present roster <- (you know, what I was commenting on, Habs having the youngest group of players RIGHT NOW)

that's a fact.

 

[Mario Lemieux fan 66]

No, don't trade Petry now. Forget the frikkin trade deadline. Let's play out this season with our roster intact and enjoy the playoffs, no matter how short a run. Then in the summer trade up in the draft by leveraging Petry. A few teams like NYR, LA are rebuilding and don't need vets, but many other bottom teams are finished rebuilding and want to compete. Offer a great #2 Dman like Petry in exchange for their 1st round pick. Add more if the pick is top-5. There are ways to approach this.

Selling Petry at the draft would not be a popular move unless you get a crazy package for him like the Pacioretty trade or the Erat trade.

 

[scrubadam]

"Throw everything away"? Who said that? I advocated trading one player, not because this team isn't good now, but because it can be closer to the top in the near future if we add the most valuable commodity: Young high-end talent. Sure, we can get high end talent other ways if we trade/sign for an established top Dman and forward. However, writing those two deals on our to-do list is easy; making them happen is a different story. How often are the Habs winners in the UFA sweepstakes? Which of our top players would you suggest trading away in order to get a top player in return? There's no free ride to high-end talent. That's why almost every winning team is stocked with players they've picked and nurtured themselves.

You think banking on top picks is hoping for a miracle; I think expecting top UFAs to sign here is equally miraculous. Man, would I love Erik Karlsson here... but I'm not holding my breath.

Well considiring that only 15% of top 5 players in the last 20 years have won cups, banking on getting a talent that will turn the team into a cup champion is as much as asking for a miracle with Karlsson signing here. Both are huge shots in the dark. So you can sign a big UFA and be like EDM with Lucic or you can draft and be like FLA/BUF/ARZ. Both are risks.

As far as Petry goes, I don't see him bringing in a high enough talent to replace what we will lose from him. The D is already pretty thin so lets get rid of one of our most talented and highest scoring D's, doesn't really compute to me.

This team will be worse without Petry, which is the plan, but I don't think they will be bad enough to get top 5. So we will just be in that 10-15 range. Rather ride it out with Petry. If the team is destined to stink well they will drop and get that elite talent. Look at LA, or PHI, or NJD this year. Heck look at our own habs who drafted top 10, 3 times in the last 7 years, twice top 3!

Build on what we have, if its not good enough then the NHL will punish us anyways and we will finish at the bottom, we saw it last year with the team. We have a good player who isn't 35 years old how about we keep talent and ADD to it. If it fails next year then move him.

 

[scrubadam]

No, don't trade Petry now. Forget the frikkin trade deadline. Let's play out this season with our roster intact and enjoy the playoffs, no matter how short a run. Then in the summer trade up in the draft by leveraging Petry. A few teams like NYR, LA are rebuilding and don't need vets, but many other bottom teams are finished rebuilding and want to compete. Offer a great #2 Dman like Petry in exchange for their 1st round pick. Add more if the pick is top-5. There are ways to approach this.

I like this idea. Reasses in the summer. Who knows maybe we make a cup final this year? Maybe we get blown out in 4 and Petry is a -20? Lots can change between now and next July.