Confirmed Trade: [MTL/CBJ] Patrik Laine, '26 2nd for Jordan Harris

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

squashmaple

gudbranson apologist
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2022
1,816
3,295
Columbus
I'm not remotely upset by this as a Columbus fan. Full contract and distraction out of the room and off the books, no bad money coming in in the form of a longer cap dump (Anderson, Gallagher, Rakell from Pitt, etc), and Columbus gets back a serviceable young player at the team's major place of need (3LD)? All of that feels worth a future second to get out of 17 million real dollars and the circus of Laine.

Obviously the best thing for Columbus would've been to keep him and rebuild his value, but if that was off the table, then I don't object to this return at all nor do I see it as an absolute fleece by Montreal. Laine comes with very real risks, as has been repeatedly rehashed on these boards. I wish him the best, but I'm glad he's on another team now.
 

frederixx

Registered User
Dec 5, 2005
3,004
1,959
Harris is gonna be an nhler tho. I could see him having a career like Nate Schmidt or Jason Demers. Barron is in Europe 2 years from now

Yes, I like Harris overall game, but no way they wanted to keep 2 small dmen in their lineup.

Barron is probably gone too
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wats

Michoulicious

Registered User
Dec 9, 2014
7,371
8,040
I can definitely see the strategy. Montreal used to pick up the smallest players in the league they have shifted to the most injury prone players in the league.
Wings fan and Ville Husso should know!
I don t think so. Harris is a young D with an affordable team contract. He has very good IQ does not make a lot of mistakes. He is already a 5D/6D and has time to develop into solid 4D. I think his trade value would have been somewhere between a 2nd and 1st (and before everybody jumps on that price, how many 2nd rounders end up as good as Harris is now ?) To me this was a good way for CBJ to get out of Laine s contract while getting positive value.
So the value of Laine is either negative, or 0, or slightly positive at best (late 2nd, 3rd rounder).

I think Harris is worth about a 2nd round pick, so value is basically around 0 for Laine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ciao

Miller Time

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
23,835
16,529
Harris is a lot better than many around here realize... He very well could develop into a solid top 4 dman.

But I'm damn impressed that KH got the best player in the deal and a 2nd... Even if he's no better than he has been in CBJ, Laine immediately addresses a Habs gap (secondary scoring) and we cleared out a backlog of waiver exempt D... Adding a pick to boot.

KH is building something special in Mtl, one astute move at a time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ciao and donghabs98

JKG33

Leafs & Kings
Oct 31, 2009
7,482
11,376
Winnipeg
Gotta look back and laugh at the Laine trade rumor thread. I was right when I said he had negative value.

This almost feels like a lose-lose trade unless Columbus has something lined up for the cap space they've opened up. Because otherwise they could've simply sat on him and not paid to unload him. For Montreal, a 2nd doesn't seem worth it to take on two years of his cap. And if Laine couldn't handle the pressure of playing in two of the smallest markets in the league, I'm not sure how moving to Montreal of all places solves that
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chr1s97

Forepar

Registered User
Nov 6, 2011
1,258
748
South-Central Ohio
I'm absolutely baffled that teams like San Jose, Anaheim, Utah to name a few were not willing to take on a bet like this. If you are a team that is just trying to get into the playoffs at max, this is not really a risk with a two year term.

I get it that no contender would be willing to do it for a full caphit (nor could they in most cases), but teams in the bottom tier of the NHL, why the f*** not?
Because a few of those teams were on Laine's NT list?
 

ole ole

Registered User
Oct 7, 2017
11,971
6,059
I don't know why don was so against retention unless it was an ownership call. That obviously impacted the return greatly. I'm pretty glad to have him off the team though.

We got a ton of room now.
Ya you gotta think at 20% retention he could have easily got better than Harris.
I guess the Habs for now lucked out.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
55,271
34,419
40N 83W (approx)
I'm not remotely upset by this as a Columbus fan. Full contract and distraction out of the room and off the books, no bad money coming in in the form of a longer cap dump (Anderson, Gallagher, Rakell from Pitt, etc), and Columbus gets back a serviceable young player at the team's major place of need (3LD)? All of that feels worth a future second to get out of 17 million real dollars and the circus of Laine.

Obviously the best thing for Columbus would've been to keep him and rebuild his value, but if that was off the table, then I don't object to this return at all nor do I see it as an absolute fleece by Montreal. Laine comes with very real risks, as has been repeatedly rehashed on these boards. I wish him the best, but I'm glad he's on another team now.
The one thing keeping me from agreeing with this is that I'm not yet convinced "keep him and rebuild his value" was off the table, although admittedly the most recent stuff we were hearing from Waddell made that seem more and more likely.

The return we did get would suggest that it was indeed off the table, but I don't know if I buy it yet. Maybe I just need time to get used to the idea. :dunno:
 

LOFIN

Registered User
Sep 16, 2011
16,087
22,514
I don't know why don was so against retention unless it was an ownership call.
I don't think it would be fair to call the CBJ ownership cheap, because they really haven't been AFAIK. But they are already paying Babcock and Vincent for not coaching, probably paying Jarmo for not being the GM... Don't want to add Laine to that list of expenses you are paying not to do anything for your org.
 

squashmaple

gudbranson apologist
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2022
1,816
3,295
Columbus
The one thing keeping me from agreeing with this is that I'm not yet convinced "keep him and rebuild his value" was off the table, although admittedly the most recent stuff we were hearing from Waddell made that seem more and more likely.

The return we did get would suggest that it was indeed off the table, but I don't know if I buy it yet. Maybe I just need time to get used to the idea. :dunno:
Why? A GM just simply doesn't say that kind of thing explicitly in the media if there's any possibilty of a repair of the relationship. It was over. That's as safe an assumption as anything in hockey.
 

Spring in Fialta

A malign star kept him
Apr 1, 2007
26,325
15,539
Montreal, QC
That is a naive way to look at it.

Sure, on the team, he won't be the focal point. In the media though? He is now the biggest name they have... in a market that has been starving for an offensive star since Kovalev has left... and even he was kind of a manufactured star considering he really only had one great season with the Habs.

As soon as he goes goal-less for 4 games, the media will lose their shit.

Laine is not ready for this.

I think this is a pretty archaic way of looking at the current landscape in Montreal. Outside of the 2021 run, the team has been pretty terrible for almost a decade, there is no buzz around the team and the young don't care about it. Even as the only team in town, they're still a bit of a dead ticket. There is zero frenzy around the team and there hasn't been in years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive

Forepar

Registered User
Nov 6, 2011
1,258
748
South-Central Ohio
For what? What are they going to use that capspace for during the next two years?
Who knows, but it's better than having an at best disgruntled Laine either on the roster to open camp or refusing to report. CBJ isn't making any noise as far as PO's are concerned in the next 2 years. They need to develop their young players and be able to jump on a big fish should one become available. Laine is no longer a big fish, but a salary of $8.7M is in big fish range, no matter that the remaining term was only 2 years.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
55,271
34,419
40N 83W (approx)
Why? A GM just simply doesn't say that kind of thing explicitly in the media if there's any possibilty of a repair of the relationship. It was over. That's as safe an assumption as anything in hockey.
It's mostly instinctual reaction and I have yet to ascertain if there's a rational reason for my thinking that way or if it's just my dislike for Waddell coloring my thinking and so I can't really commit one way or the other with certainty.
 

Gaylord Q Tinkledink

Registered User
Apr 29, 2018
31,470
34,460
I'm convinced Kent Hughes could have traded Ryder + Halak + 2nd for actual value.
Halak was a number 1 goalie for a while.

Ryder was had some 30 goal seasons.

I believe that 2nd ended up being Subban.

The only person who couldn't get value out of this would have been Bergevin.
 

Garo

Registered User
Jul 30, 2005
11,527
1,699
Montréal
Anybody could have; that was actually not too terrible of a package by itself. It's just that "actual value" would not have constituted PPG+ in-his-prime recent Cup champion reigning Rocket Richard holder Vincent Lecavalier.
Eh, the Ryder that was pushed in those proposals kinda sucked, very one-dimensional winger that didn't give much of a damn outside of shooting.

Obviously the Ryder after leaving was a way better player, which was still true when he came back.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
55,271
34,419
40N 83W (approx)
Eh, the Ryder that was pushed in those proposals kinda sucked, very one-dimensional winger that didn't give much of a damn outside of shooting.

Obviously the Ryder after leaving was a way better player, which was still true when he came back.
I suppose that's fair. I just feel like in the decade and a half since that meme happened a lot of why it was so terrible has been lost - it wasn't so much the package itself as it was who was being asked for in return.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad