Jaimito Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 I wonder how much of this price was an incentive to take on Pitlick. He is paid 2.2 million this year and doesn't seem to have performed near a level deserving of that. If MON were to value him at league min (750 K) you could make the case that he has 650 K in overpayment due through the rest of the season. That is not an inconsiderable amount and I'm sure MTL would want an incentive to relieve CGY of that liability, and I'm not just talking a fifth rd. pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 1 hour ago, BlastPast said: I wonder how much of this price was an incentive to take on Pitlick. He is paid 2.2 million this year and doesn't seem to have performed near a level deserving of that. If MON were to value him at league min (750 K) you could make the case that he has 650 K in overpayment due through the rest of the season. That is not an inconsiderable amount and I'm sure MTL would want an incentive to relieve CGY of that liability, and I'm not just talking a fifth rd. pick. Don't think it mattered. Montreal is not going to make the playoffs. By moving Toffoli they save money already - he is paid over 5M this season. Pitlick was just a contract to balance out the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 Calgary has to be going all in this year... Tkachuk, Gaudreau, and Mangiapane are all due to get big raises next year.... they'll lose depth for sure after this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 33 minutes ago, mll said: Don't think it mattered. Montreal is not going to make the playoffs. By moving Toffoli they save money already - he is paid over 5M this season. Pitlick was just a contract to balance out the cap. It didn't matter? I'm pretty sure Geoff Molson would disagree. The difference being that Toffolli is currently worth the money and Pitlick isn't so MTL are not being relieved of a "bad money" while CGY are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, BlastPast said: It didn't matter? I'm pretty sure Geoff Molson would disagree. The difference being that Toffolli is currently worth the money and Pitlick isn't so MTL are not being relieved of a "bad money" while CGY are. Pitlicks contract is up after this season and he’s making less than Toffoli. They aren’t making the playoffs either way so I doubt very much if Molson cares about whether Pitlick is entirely worth his remaining contract. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 24 minutes ago, qwijibo said: Pitlicks contract is up after this season and he’s making less than Toffoli. They aren’t making the playoffs either way so I doubt very much if Molson cares about whether Pitlick is entirely worth his remaining contract. Cash is cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 26 minutes ago, BlastPast said: Cash is cash. Yeah. And he’s spending less after the deal than before. So what’s your point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 Just now, qwijibo said: Yeah. And he’s spending less after the deal than before. So what’s your point? Oy vey. Do you see all those empty seats at the MTL home games, generating no gate revenue? Do you really think an owner is going to be indifferent to paying 1 million for something he only appraises at 350 K ? Moving out Toffoli's money is a different matter because he is providing a positive consumer surplus to his team. Pitlick provides a negative surplus ( or a deficit if you will) to his team. That is why one has positive value and one has negative value. And the fact they are missing the playoffs is moot, this is about good/bad money in/out. Yes, he is spending less but he is no longer getting the same value for his investment; that is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 1 minute ago, BlastPast said: Oy vey. Do you see all those empty seats at the MTL home games, generating no gate revenue? Do you really think an owner is going to be indifferent to paying 1 million for something he only appraises at 350 K ? Moving out Toffoli's money is a different matter because he is providing a positive consumer surplus to his team. Pitlick provides a negative surplus ( or a deficit if you will) to his team. That is why one has positive value and one has negative value. And the fact they are missing the playoffs is moot, this is about good/bad money in/out. Yes, he is spending less but he is no longer getting the same value for his investment; that is relevant. Lol. I can’t believe you actually think this is a big deal. Do you think having Pitlick in the lineup is going to radically affect the Canadiens bottom line? His salary is a drop in the bucket and someone has to fill the spot left by Toffoli. If the trade caused them to miss the playoffs (and by extension playoff revenue) then you MIGHT have a point. But playoffs aren’t in the picture. So you trade away a player making more for a player making less. The new player is gone at the end of the season. This isn’t rocket science. The inclusion of Pitlick would have had negligible effect on the trade value. If it makes you feel better go ahead and assume Calgary included the 5th round pick for Montreal to take his contract 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 1 minute ago, qwijibo said: Lol. I can’t believe you actually think this is a big deal. Do you think having Pitlick in the lineup is going to radically affect the Canadiens bottom line? His salary is a drop in the bucket and someone has to fill the spot left by Toffoli. If the trade caused them to miss the playoffs (and by extension playoff revenue) then you MIGHT have a point. But playoffs aren’t in the picture. So you trade away a player making more for a player making less. The new player is gone at the end of the season. This isn’t rocket science. The inclusion of Pitlick would have had negligible effect on the trade value. If it makes you feel better go ahead and assume Calgary included the 5th round pick for Montreal to take his contract You don't understand economics. Especially in this financial environment, every penny counts. If I had to guess, it's more than just the 5th rd. pick that was compensation. I suppose it's possible they value him at his contract value but I doubt it. I can't be bothered to explain this anymore. Anyway, you have a good day ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 6 minutes ago, BlastPast said: You don't understand economics. Especially in this financial environment, every penny counts. If I had to guess, it's more than just the 5th rd. pick that was compensation. I suppose it's possible they value him at his contract value but I doubt it. I can't be bothered to explain this anymore. Anyway, you have a good day ! I actually understand economics just fine. I just disagree that this is a big deal in any way. It’s meaningless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, HKSR said: Calgary has to be going all in this year... Tkachuk, Gaudreau, and Mangiapane are all due to get big raises next year.... they'll lose depth for sure after this year. They will have to move Milan Lucic to make space for those guys. I wonder what it would take to get rid of Lucic. Dumping one year of Marleau fetched a 1st rounder, which turned into Seth Jarvis, a surefire NHLer who has a ton of potential. I would take Lucic if Calgary gives us a 1st. We are retooling anyways so whatever cap space we clear up can be used to accommodate this sort of trade. Edited February 17, 2022 by khay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 7 hours ago, mll said: Don't think it mattered. Montreal is not going to make the playoffs. By moving Toffoli they save money already - he is paid over 5M this season. Pitlick was just a contract to balance out the cap. You do get a higher return for taking a cap dump in a deal though. Which was BlastPast's point. The return was inflated in exchange for taking Pitlick off their hands. GM's don't say "sure I'll take a useless contract off your hands for nothing extra in return. We love spending money for no reason to help oither teams out". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL97OneTimer Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 28 minutes ago, khay said: They will have to move Milan Lucic to make space for those guys. I wonder what it would take to get rid of Lucic. Dumping one year of Marleau fetched a 1st rounder, which turned into Seth Jarvis, a surefire NHLer who has a ton of potential. I would take Lucic if Calgary gives us a 1st. We are retooling anyways so whatever cap space we clear up can be used to accommodate this sort of trade. Calgary's first may not be the first we want, nor a surefire thing. Helping Calgary any more than giving them Markstrom, Tanev and essentially Toffoli is just painful already. Lucic would be yet another stake in the heart of this franchise. Lots of ways to get a first rounder but this isn't one of them for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 49 minutes ago, Baggins said: You do get a higher return for taking a cap dump in a deal though. Which was BlastPast's point. The return was inflated in exchange for taking Pitlick off their hands. GM's don't say "sure I'll take a useless contract off your hands for nothing extra in return. We love spending money for no reason to help oither teams out". Calgary needed to send out some money to make the deal work. At this point in the season on the size of the contract it was a negligible amount. I can’t imagine it inflated the price much. Montreal got the 1st and a prospect they wanted. Maybe Calgary added the 5th to take Pitlick. It certainly wasn’t more substantial than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 Don't keep up on young players much these days, but would say the Habs are smart to get the ball rolling. With hosting the draft as well, nice to see them scoring 1st's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 2 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said: Calgary's first may not be the first we want, nor a surefire thing. Helping Calgary any more than giving them Markstrom, Tanev and essentially Toffoli is just painful already. Lucic would be yet another stake in the heart of this franchise. Lots of ways to get a first rounder but this isn't one of them for me. OK. Not going to argue too hard because I agree with everything you said. But Toronto's first in the Marleau trade became 13th overall. Yes, that was the weird COVID shortened season where the Leafs lost in the play-in round but it goes to show that you just never know how things will go in a season. Calgary could have key injuries and whatnot that could derail their season. We could bury Lucic in the minors as an F you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaninMex Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 3 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said: Calgary's first may not be the first we want, nor a surefire thing. Helping Calgary any more than giving them Markstrom, Tanev and essentially Toffoli is just painful already. Lucic would be yet another stake in the heart of this franchise. Lots of ways to get a first rounder but this isn't one of them for me. We did not give them those players. They chose to sign there when they reached UFA. Those players could have signed anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Baggins said: You do get a higher return for taking a cap dump in a deal though. Which was BlastPast's point. The return was inflated in exchange for taking Pitlick off their hands. GM's don't say "sure I'll take a useless contract off your hands for nothing extra in return. We love spending money for no reason to help oither teams out". Doubt it mattered much at all here. They are trying to sell their assets to help towards their rebuild. Can't imagine they would turn down a deal because they have to take back some cash on an expiring UFA. They actually even got to save cash. Either they took back Pitlick and his pro-rated 2.2M (so about 800K in actual cash) or have the deal fall apart with Calgary then not having the cap space to bring in Toffoli. Toffoli is owed about 1.9M for the rest of the season - they still save over 1M in actual cash for this season alone. Edited February 17, 2022 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now