pth2
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2018
- 3,478
- 2,759
I'd trade him this season for a haul, otherwise keep him one more year.
RD is very, very green behind him.
Value of: David Savard at the deadline
- Thread starter LEAFANFORLIFE23
- Start date
RD is very, very green behind him.
pth2
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2018
- 3,478
- 2,759
Then he has more value is a mentor for Guhle, Barron and other kids.
He is needed for that purpose this season. Perhaps next season TDL he can be traded with 50% retention for value.
pth2
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2018
- 3,478
- 2,759
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 37,995
- 18,911
Ceci and a 2nd for Savard?
You save some cap in the deal and have a warm body with some versatility
You save some cap in the deal and have a warm body with some versatility
FerrisRox
"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
If Ceci didn't have another year on his contract, I would have done that, but I don't think adding a second is worth downgrading from Savard to Ceci and then having Ceci on the roster next year, too.
Rather keep Savard over getting a 2nd to take Ceci for 2 seasons. Montreal doesn't need a warm body. They have too many nhl ready D to waste a roster spot/cap space on Ceci
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 37,995
- 18,911
Ceci is a good Dman though. You can have a certain amount of young D cracking the lineup but don't you need a veteran to hang around? He's not what he was in Ottawa or Toronto. He has matured and improved over time
I don't know if a 2nd is the piece but in principle, as an Oiler fan I have to say that any trade for a D has to have Ceci going the other way.
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 37,995
- 18,911
chances are you will have to take salary back. There are a few buyers out there who had some IR space open up but only a couple. As contracts go I definitely think Ceci is perfect in that it's actually less than Savard's, and Ceci has positive value. It's not dissimlar to what we did to get Ekholm and having them take Barrie, and that aspect of it didn't take up much of the value of that trade. Plus there is the rumor in the other thread that Montreal will take salary to make a trade work.
So no offense but even if you don't like the idea, it seems likely that that Hughes will.
Montreal can take salary back. I never said they couldn't. But it makes no sense to take back a 2 year contract on an inferior defenceman when they have so many D prospects knocking on the door. If Ceci was on an expiring contract it might be different. But he's not. So if Ceci going the other way is a requirement Edmonton will have to look elsewhere. The only reason to move Savard is to open a spot for one of Mailloux, Xhekaj, Struble, Hutson etc
Mr Positive
Cap Crunch Incoming
- Nov 20, 2013
- 37,995
- 18,911
that's definitely possible, but it's also possible that the main motivation is the typical deadline trade from a seller's persepctive: to stockpile futures and move assets who won't be around anymore when times are good. I will yield to Habs fans on motivation to an extent, but even our fanbase is a little too eager to demand the team gets handed over to young guys. Looking at the Habs roster, you could still use a veteran D if you moved Savard (just my uninformed opinion). Ceci could be a good guy in that he gives some stabillity as he is a responsible D-first guy now btw, but might be easier to pass in the depth chart than Savard
Like I said, if he was on an expiring contract it might be a possibility, but as it is Montreal will likely have to more a defenceman of two or lose them to waivers. Ceci simply isn't a fit
pth2
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2018
- 3,478
- 2,759
I tend to agree; if it has to be a contract with an extra year to get a great return, then a forward would be of more interest.
Kudo Shinichi
Registered User
- Apr 20, 2012
- 21,201
- 28,138
I don't see any reason why two of Xhekaj/Harris/Barron/Struble/Reinbacher/Kovacevic couldn't play 17 min in the nhl, especially when considering that the habs are not in a win-now mode and allow for kids to make mistakes.
Heck, all 3 of Harris, Barron, and Kovacevic are already averaging over 17 min this season.
Also, having one of those kids play 17min a night in the nhl is a way better option than demoting them to the ahl.
Matheson will need to be traded within the next couple of years, but he definitely shoudn't be traded before Savard (unless the return package is too great to pass). He's way younger and way better than Savard, and also has more years on his contract left.
FerrisRox
"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
If you think Ceci is a good D-man, then, by all means, keep him.
If Montreal is trading David Savard, it's to get an asset and open up a spot on their bluelline. Getting Ceci does not open up a spot, and if they want "another veteran" then Savard is already outstanding in that capacity.
If Ceci needs to go the other way in a deal, than Edmonton is not a good trade partner.
From Habs standpoint they are in no rush to trade Savard. The best time to do it is next year near TDL at 50% to maximize the return and not have to take back a Ceci type. Also, the Habs only have one remaining retention slot for this season so next season it resets and they can retain at will.
Savard is a good guy to have during a rebuild. I think we need him for another year to help transition the young D.
I think it would take more than a 2nd to turn Ceci into Savard for 1.5 years.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,695
- 17,559
It only takes one very misguided or stupid GM...
They shouldn't (and by 17 minutes, I basically meant 3rd pairing; 18 minutes is still 3rd pairing), and with Savard gone, one (or two) of them will have to play even more.
As for Matheson, it's not so much about him as it's about playing on the left side, where the younger players are closer to being ready to assume more duties.
Last edited:
JianYang
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 19,457
- 18,750
It's a delicate balance. Aside from Matheson and Savard, their entire defense is made of first or second year players.
I don't think they can trade every single veteran.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,695
- 17,559
I don't see the point in flipping him for less than 1st or equivalent.
That may look a bit crazy, but his deal is up at the end of 2024-25, which means the retention spot is used for a season and a half, AND this is also the last retention spot for this season. Also, it's not like the Canadiens need the caproom the trade would provide, especially as it's not a lot of caproom in the first place, and as I said above, no actual Canadiens D-Men other than Savard should be playing more than 17 minutes a game on the right side (and we ALREADY have either Barron or Kovacevic playing 2nd pair minutes, something neither should be doing).
Of course, Pittsburgh's 2024 first is gone, and I think the 2025 first is also locked in the trade for the 2024 1st (I don't quite know how it works). Meaning it's a 2026 1st. Which makes no sense from Pittsburgh's perspective.
Without retention, things would obviously be different, but then again, considering how Savard is needed in order to not overexpose rookies and sophomores, I don't see any upside in locking in another 2nd rounder or a 3rd and a 5th right away, when Savard could probably be traded for a 2nd rounder NEXT season if the situation calls for it.
Last edited:
HuGort
Registered User
