Proposal: Minnesota/Montreal
- Thread starter Natey
- Start date
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
Risky deal for the Habs, since Peart can become a bust. Usually, you're given a couple if not three prospects, if offered one veteran.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
It is for sure, but it's just another piece to a rebuilding team.
Kulak is good and I would gladly resign him in Montreal. But he's still a UFA and you never know. Our management seem to really like him.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
Most Habs fans value him at a low 2nd/high 3rd which is exactly what Peart is. And he's a good skater, so he fits in with Montreal's plans.
I actually see him being similar to Kulak now.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
It's removed. Apparently that's not allowed. Whoops.
And mostly just to avoid the thread getting locked like most Montreal fan proposals.
Last edited:
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
Peart isn't even Kulak-caliber yet. Maybe a 3rd or a 4th should do.It's removed. Apparently that's not allowed. Whoops.
And mostly just to avoid the thread getting locked like most Montreal fan proposals.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
That's true, but Kulak is a rental at the end of the day.
Getting Peart is like trading Kulak for a late 2nd / early 3rd. I don't think the value is that far off by itself. A 3rd or 4th being added is far too much, in my opinion.
I'm a Habs fan and I'm fine with this straight up.
Last edited:
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
Why would Minnesota trade Peart for a 3rd or a 4th? That makes no sense. Legitimately zero sense.
I'm sticking to my proposal currently in the OP.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
I apologize; I didn't know the situation in Minnesota too well. I just thought valuewise. Maybe, I should've mentioned that I was stating just in terms of raw value.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
How's that raw value when they just spent a late 2nd rounder to draft him??
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
Because you can't trade a value of uncertainty without paying extra. Kulak is an established player; Peart isn't. Peart is projected to be, but not established.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
You make no sense.
If that were the case Ben Chiarot wouldn't have just been traded for a 1st.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
Okay, what if Peart turns into a bust after getting traded for Kulak? Minnesota isn't going to take that gamble.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,520
- 8,860
Why would Minnesota care if Peart busted after they traded him? Holy shit, I'm done with this conversation. Have a good day.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,585
- 2,587
Djp
Registered User
rule was changed in new CBA. You can’t attach triggers on resigning or trading again.
can only do player performance or team performance triggers.
with Buffalo trades of Ristolainen and Reinhart would have likeky had resigning triggers in the deals. Since that wasnt allowed it affected trade structures.
Minnesota has no reason to trade Peart at this time based on how he’s trending. Would need to be a real impact and this ain’t it.
Nico Cauzuki
Registered User
Stop making bad proposals. Minnesota isn't trading a 2nd round pick / prospect for a 8th d at best who won't play on our team
