News Article: UFA and RFA next year...what do you want?

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Their definition of a giveaway is a tape to tape pass to an opponent because their numbers don't make much sense.
Murray is a terrible Dman, you don't need to look at the numbers for that. There's a reason why he's only averaging 13min of ice time, being solid ain't it.

You're taking TOI in the equation, on a team that was playing Desharnais 15 minutes + until recently, and who's employing Bouillon in the last 2 minutes of a game?

Also, if you're a better reference than objective statistics to say Murray is a turnover machine, well be my guest. The guy originally said you never knew what kind of error Murray was going to make with the puck. Fact is, he's not even been credited with one single giveaway this season. Against Ottawa, he was the only d-man to not have a goal scored when he was on the ice. And despite playing only 7 games, he's already 4th on the team in hits (an area where we desperately need everything we can get), and 6th on blocked shots.

He absolutely hasn't been awful. He has his utility, which is more than what we can say about half of our defense so far this season.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

filling a gap until Emelin comes back--I would rather let tinordi grow into it then let a vet use up cap space.

If you'd rather have Tinordi there, I guess you don't mind a second version of Hal Gill, with less talent to play on the PK? Because that's exactly what his ceiling looked like when he started the year in Montreal.

 

[Markowicz]

Do you watch the games? Gio is not half as bad as you make him out to be. Despite his size and tears in both his biceps, he's still good for 20 goals and his defensive awareness is very useful on this team. Him and Plek shut down top lines. Whether he comes back next season depends on the progression of the youngins imho.

Agree with mostly everything else. If Diaz were just a bit bigger / stronger he'd be a good top 4 defense man. At this point I see him as a 5th or 6th on a good team.

Thank god he's still fairly decent. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to move at the deadline.

 

[le_sean]

I honestly believe Diaz is playing the worst of the ones listed.

 

[MsChanandlerBong]

Gionta definitely doesn't look lost or out of place, and you can't accuse him of not trying...he's just getting older and losing his scoring touch. Still, he is a fantastic shutdown winger with some offensive upside, who should be on the 3rd line (not the first).

DD needs to go.

Diaz needs to go.

Bouillon needs to sit when Emelin returns.

Murray needs to play limited ice time and hit.

 

[Runner77]

Thing is, they're reporting contract negotiations with Diaz.

Every time the team commits to a diminutive player (with Gallagher being the exception and even so, you can only roster so many Gallaghers), that's one less spot for a bigger body in next year's edition.

If MB really wanted to end the Reign of Midgetry that was instituted by Gainey in 2005 when the red line was removed, then he can't afford to renew any of the above 4 diminutive types.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

I honestly believe Diaz is playing the worst of the ones listed.

My problem with Diaz has never been the mistakes he might be making or anything. But always the kind of game he plays. He's ridiculously quick to get rid of the puck for an offensive defenseman, will create a LOT of icings when he is being pressured, won't win battles in front of his net, won't win battles along the boards, and quite frankly, besides having his shots deflected by Bournival, I haven't seen him make many sharp decisions offensively neither.

He's also the kind of guy who gives absolutely no identity to your team. He's not a puck-rusher, he's not a great shooter, he's not a QB like Markov out there, he gives up his blueline fairly easily, and he's not that great at breaking offensive plays from the other team. I just don't like having colourless fillers on this team that already has way too many.

 

[overlords]

I just merged the Bouillon/Murray/DD/Gionta etc thread into the UFA/RFA thread, considering it was the exact same thing, save for DD, who already has his own thread. Try not to create threads that already exist, mmmk?

 

[le_sean]

My problem with Diaz has never been the mistakes he might be making or anything. But always the kind of game he plays. He's ridiculously quick to get rid of the puck for an offensive defenseman, will create a LOT of icings when he is being pressured, won't win battles in front of his net, won't win battles along the boards, and quite frankly, besides having his shots deflected by Bournival, I haven't seen him make many sharp decisions offensively neither.

He's also the kind of guy who gives absolutely no identity to your team. He's not a puck-rusher, he's not a great shooter, he's not a QB like Markov out there, he gives up his blueline fairly easily, and he's not that great at breaking offensive plays from the other team. I just don't like having colourless fillers on this team that already has way too many.

I couldn't have said it better. If a player is undersized he should have at least one redeeming quality that makes him stand out and worth the sacrifice in size. There is nothing about Diaz that stands out. He's not a good decision maker, he doesn't have an elite shot, he's not tough, he's not particularly quick. He's simply average and undersized.

 

[Sorinth]

I'm not sure I see that our D really needs to get much better? We have a Norris winner, top-5 special teams play, and sitting 4th in GA/G in the league right now? While not playing a particularly defense-focused system. Returning the incumbents is a pretty safe call, I'd say. It's more up front where attention is needed for overall improvement.

Overall the D is generally good but it's also deeply flawed. So although we can do well in regular season, in the playoffs it's more likely to be exposed. We lack the proper balance between puck moving and shutdown defenceman.

 

[Blind Gardien]

Overall the D is generally good but it's also deeply flawed. So although we can do well in regular season, in the playoffs it's more likely to be exposed. We lack the proper balance between puck moving and shutdown defenceman.

Look at the D corps' around the league... which ones do you think reflect this ideal balance, and therefore are not "deeply flawed"?

I can't see how our current D, particularly with the defensive record the team has this season, could possibly be categorized as "deeply flawed". Would it be nice to tweak the balance? Could it be better still? Sure. Swap out Diaz and replace him with some big-hitter large stud stay-at-homer who can log 20 mins from time to time when called upon and give us reliable shut-down D. That would be sweet. But you don't generally get to construct the perfect fantasy defense group. And lacking the perfect fantasy grouping, it doesn't mean what you end up with instead is "deeply flawed".

At any rate, whether it is the perfect grouping or not, it's still better to retain something that's "pretty good" and putting up good numbers this season when you can. Because you never know what the future will bring and whether you'll even have a realistic opportunity to create that perfect grouping either. If you get the right terms on retaining the current group now, at least it secures you the assurance of not sliding back to something worse on that day when all of your UFAs leave town and you can't convince others to sign.

Then if you do happen to get the chance to sign somebody who does balance things better, or if a player like Tinordi steps up quickly, you can adjust accordingly from a position of strength.

So even while I'm not a fan of Diaz, I'd still be looking to re-sign him. At the right price/term, anyway.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Look at the D corps' around the league... which ones do you think reflect this ideal balance, and therefore are not "deeply flawed"?

Only one that comes to mind is Vancouver's top 4, Edler is an excellent puck mover, Garrison with a bomb from the point, and Hamhuis/Bieksa as solid defensive guys. And then you add Tanev in on the bottom pairing, they have a solid group. Even then though, they're still dressing Yannick Weber who essentially plays as a 13th forward. I get what you're saying though, I think it's like the whole "first line center" thing, where everyone expects a 1st line C to put up close to PPG, even though there's only about 20-25 centers a year that even break 60 points. Or the definition of "1st pairing defenseman" where it gets restricted to where there's only like 15 of them in the NHL.

There really aren't very many teams with a perfect group, and in the grand scheme of things it's hard to complain about Markov-Subban-Emelin-Gorges making up your top 4 with Diaz as a fill in.

 

[Sorinth]

Look at the D corps' around the league... which ones do you think reflect this ideal balance, and therefore are not "deeply flawed"?

I can't see how our current D, particularly with the defensive record the team has this season, could possibly be categorized as "deeply flawed". Would it be nice to tweak the balance? Could it be better still? Sure. Swap out Diaz and replace him with some big-hitter large stud stay-at-homer who can log 20 mins from time to time when called upon and give us reliable shut-down D. That would be sweet. But you don't generally get to construct the perfect fantasy defense group. And lacking the perfect fantasy grouping, it doesn't mean what you end up with instead is "deeply flawed".

At any rate, whether it is the perfect grouping or not, it's still better to retain something that's "pretty good" and putting up good numbers this season when you can. Because you never know what the future will bring and whether you'll even have a realistic opportunity to create that perfect grouping either. If you get the right terms on retaining the current group now, at least it secures you the assurance of not sliding back to something worse on that day when all of your UFAs leave town and you can't convince others to sign.

Then if you do happen to get the chance to sign somebody who does balance things better, or if a player like Tinordi steps up quickly, you can adjust accordingly from a position of strength.

So even while I'm not a fan of Diaz, I'd still be looking to re-sign him. At the right price/term, anyway.

How many D-corps in the league have a top-4 where only 1 player is over 6' and that one player is a whopping 6'1? Every team will have weaknesses, but we have more than just a weakness we have a flaw. It's too easy to exploit our weakness and that's why it will be tough to win a 7 game series, when focus and intensity go up our weakness will become even more prominent.

 

[Andy]

For all those who scoff at fancy stats:

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris 1m
Pat Morris says he uses Corsi and Fenwick when presenting case to NHL GMs on behalf of clients. "The analysis is extreme, it's detailed."

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle 2m
Agent Pat Morris says "today now we're into Corsi, we're into Fenwick, we're into quality of competition."

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle 7m
Cheveldayoff says analytics are very polarizing in the NHL still. "I think it's still in its infancy... We are very interested in it."

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

For all those who scoff at fancy stats:

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris 1m
Pat Morris says he uses Corsi and Fenwick when presenting case to NHL GMs on behalf of clients. "The analysis is extreme, it's detailed."

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle 2m
Agent Pat Morris says "today now we're into Corsi, we're into Fenwick, we're into quality of competition."

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle 7m
Cheveldayoff says analytics are very polarizing in the NHL still. "I think it's still in its infancy... We are very interested in it."

How is it related to any of the stuff we're talking about here?

 

[mark24]

I think most are moving too fast here. Parros yea he's been a bit of a burden defensively and yeah Murray has given up the puck a few times to many, but these are not the key players to lead us back to the top. These are small pieces of the big puzzle. These are guys who provide security and comfort to our key pieces while playing against bigger and tougher teams. Honestly neither of them have played enough games with us to pass judgement on them. I know things haven't gone as well as we all would have liked but let's see how things go when Emelin gets back and we face off against a couple of our biggest foes. Personally I like the thoughts of having three big hitting dmen back there, and I also like the thoughts of Parros to take some heat off of Prust. Neither Murray or Parros are in the long time plans here anyways, we are building a team and these guys are part of ensuring our guys feel comfortable out there and can progress. It's nice to know you have someone out there who's got your back unconditionally. There are goods and bads with this type of player. people need to see the bigger picture here.

 

[Hoople]

Look at the D corps' around the league... which ones do you think reflect this ideal balance, and therefore are not "deeply flawed"?

I can't see how our current D, particularly with the defensive record the team has this season, could possibly be categorized as "deeply flawed". Would it be nice to tweak the balance? Could it be better still? Sure. Swap out Diaz and replace him with some big-hitter large stud stay-at-homer who can log 20 mins from time to time when called upon and give us reliable shut-down D. That would be sweet. But you don't generally get to construct the perfect fantasy defense group. And lacking the perfect fantasy grouping, it doesn't mean what you end up with instead is "deeply flawed".

At any rate, whether it is the perfect grouping or not, it's still better to retain something that's "pretty good" and putting up good numbers this season when you can. Because you never know what the future will bring and whether you'll even have a realistic opportunity to create that perfect grouping either. If you get the right terms on retaining the current group now, at least it secures you the assurance of not sliding back to something worse on that day when all of your UFAs leave town and you can't convince others to sign.

Then if you do happen to get the chance to sign somebody who does balance things better, or if a player like Tinordi steps up quickly, you can adjust accordingly from a position of strength.

So even while I'm not a fan of Diaz, I'd still be looking to re-sign him. At the right price/term, anyway.

An offensive minded DMan who is not producing points is not a good DMan to have on the team..........cheap or not.

We could fill this team with lots of bargains. But what do bargains get you? Not a championship.

 

[Hoople]

Posts recommending the trading of Markov burn my eyes.

Its a value proposition.

Markov is at the age that his skills will only decline. And while he still has tremendous skills, now is the time to trade him.

The worst thing to happen is to hold on to a player past their prime for whatever reason.

Same holds true for Gionta.

 

[RealityBytes]

Its a value proposition.

Markov is at the age that his skills will only decline. And while he still has tremendous skills, now is the time to trade him.

The worst thing to happen is to hold on to a player past their prime for whatever reason.

Same holds true for Gionta.

Same holds true for Briere.

 

[RealityBytes]

I can see the player's actual money payments to the bank being pro-rated but it doesn't add up right if the player's salary contract amount is also only pro-rated to the acquiring team's cap.

The trade deadline is March 4th and the season ends April 13th, that is 40 days. That would mean only a small portion of salary contract 40/187 = 21% would be added to the cap from a player at the trade deadline. That doesn't seem right because what would stop a team from keeping $5M under the cap and then super loading with non returning UFAs at 21% of their actual cost. At 21% rate, a team could acquire the equivalent of around $25M in several star players value. At $10M, a team could get around $50M in top FA players for a one time shot at the cup.

Also, in my previous post, I showed what I thought what was the correct method of how it was handled, but I could also be wrong. I am going to search/double check into the CBA agreement to see if what I showed was correct. (as per below)

However, perhaps someone fully knowledgeable about this could clarify and show the correct reference in the CBA agreement. Thanks.

----------------------------------
Trades

Under the terms of the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, when a team traded for another player, it assumed the full cap hit and remaining salary obligations of the acquired player. That was changed for the 2013 collective bargaining agreement. Teams may retain part of a traded player's salary to ease the cap burden on the acquiring team. Provisions on such retention are as follows:

1.The acquiring team must assume at least 50 percent of the remaining salary and cap charge of the SPC.
2.Such a contract can only be traded twice using provision 1 during the lifetime of the SPC.
3.Retained salary by the trading team cannot be more than 15 percent of the upper salary cap limit.
4.A maximum of 3 such contracts with salary retained in a trade can on a team's books at any one time.

This provision is included in Article 11 of Summary of Terms the 2013 CBA MOU

Since no one answered this, here is what I dug out of the CBA- ARTICLE 50.5.e-v: - page 278

(So, only $1M of Gionta's salary [21% of $5M at trade deadline] would count against their cap/payroll room and the acquiring team would only need $1M in open cap space after that date to cover him. To add to that though, using the present cap numbers available as per capgeek, that $1M amount would exclude 19 teams of 30 at their present salary rates [they can change during the year] with only Phoenix and Colorado of the remaining 11 teams who are now sitting as playoff contenders who could be able to or want to acquire Gionta without a team returning one or more of their players and salaries.

(v) Acquiring SPCs After the Commencement of a Season, Via Trade or
Waivers.

(A) In order for a Club to acquire a one-year SPC after the
commencement of a season (i.e., that is expiring at the conclusion
of the then-current League Year), the Club must have Payroll
Room equal to or in excess of the remaining Player Salary and
Bonuses to be earned by the Player under the SPC.

Illustration: Assume the Upper Limit is $70 million and a Club has an
Averaged Club Salary of $69 million (and Payroll Room of $1 million).
At the halfway point of the season, the Club may acquire a one-year SPC
with a face value of $2 million (i.e., the Player Salary and Bonuses to be
earned by the Player from the date such SPC is acquired through the end
of that season would be $1 million, which fits within the Club's Payroll
Room).

(B) In order for a Club to acquire a multi-year SPC after the
commencement of a season (i.e., that expires at the conclusion of a
future League Year), the Club must have Payroll Room equal to or
in excess of the Averaged Amount of the Player Salary and
Bonuses for the remainder of such season. If, however, the
Averaged Amount of the SPC exceeds the Club's Payroll Room for
the then-current League Year, the Club may still acquire such SPC,
provided that it has Tagged Payroll Room. The Tagging Rule
referred to in paragraph (e)(iv)(C) above will thereafter apply.

Illustration: Assume the Upper Limit is $70 million and a Club has an
Averaged Club Salary of $69 million (and Payroll Room of $1 million).
The Club may acquire an SPC under which the Player will earn $1 million
or less during the last half of that League Year. If, however, the SPC is a
multi-year SPC, with an Averaged Amount of $2 million, which is in
excess of the Club's Payroll Room (i.e., $1 million), then the Club may
still acquire such SPC, provided it has $2 million of Tagged Payroll Room
(i.e., the $1 million in remaining Payroll Room and $1 million of SPCs in
their last year, all of which are "tagged").

 

[Kimota]

I can't believe how underrated Diaz is. Not the greatest defenseman but the Habs have trouble getting out of their zone, imagne them with one less fast-skating, puck-moving D?

 

[25get]

I can't believe how underrated Diaz is. Not the greatest defenseman but the Habs have trouble getting out of their zone, imagne them with one less fast-skating, puck-moving D?

Well, we also lost Streit. In his last season with us he was playing 0:49 SH TOI/g with us. As of today, Diaz is at 3:16 on SH.
We also saw what he can do on PP when he was paired with Markov...

 

[Agnostic]

Its a value proposition.

Markov is at the age that his skills will only decline. And while he still has tremendous skills, now is the time to trade him.

The worst thing to happen is to hold on to a player past their prime for whatever reason.

Same holds true for Gionta.

I understand the thinking, however Markov is still a good player and his intelligence and playmaking ability can't really be replaced any time soon. With the team struggling offensively I just can't imagine filling the hole that would be created by his departure.

In his particular case I don't like the draft pick value proposition . Getting an X percent chance of turning a draft pick into an NHL player and the significantly lower y percent chance said draft pick would turn into a player equal to or better than Markov, I'd still prefer to run the course with Andrei. Plus the NMC involved and Andrei's attachment to the city is a sticking point that doesn't make trading him that practical imo.

 

[Tabarouette]

Tony Marinaro @TonyMarinaro
NHL Player Agent Don Meehan is in town today. On the agenda, a conversation with Marc Bergevin to talk contract for PK Subban.

oh boy

 

[le_sean]

I can't believe how underrated Diaz is. Not the greatest defenseman but the Habs have trouble getting out of their zone, imagne them with one less fast-skating, puck-moving D?

He's not fast or particularly good at puck moving. His clearing attempts are either erratic or soft. If he has time, sure, he can make a play. But under pressure he makes some terrible decisions.