BigHabs
#11
- Aug 3, 2009
- 6,789
- 722
We need a bottom 6er more than defense.We need defense more than a bottom 6er.
Any interest in Harris, Barron or Struble? Harris can be add for middling pick, they other 2 have decent upside and value I think.We need defense more than a bottom 6er.
Just sideways move. Unless another trade coming
Dante Fabbro
Christian Dvorak
The only plausible thing you could have said for this very average 3C made of porcelain.I don't see why Montreal would want Fabbro.
Dvorak is an overpaid but serviceable center, ideally as a #3C with a couple of strong players ahead of him; I'm not sure if that's of any use to Nashville. I'd expect the market for Dvorak to be non existent.
I don't see why Montreal would want Fabbro.
Dvorak is an overpaid but serviceable center, ideally as a #3C with a couple of strong players ahead of him; I'm not sure if that's of any use to Nashville. I'd expect the market for Dvorak would be teams who might want to sign him as a UFA and would rather see if he's a fit ahead of time.
Montreal has Reinbacher and Mailloux coming up, and likely haven't given up on Barron, with Savard and Kovasevic still filling roles for the time being. Adding a RD right now just doesn't make sense. Might as well just extend Kovasevic as a 3d pairing RD.The problem with that is Dvorak's 4.5 million salary and MTL having a single retention spot. If we had two it might be different, but Savard is likely the guy for that retention for max return.
Fabbro saves us cap space and maybe gives us a future RD for our bottom pair.
I'm not exactly pumping his tires here, but the suggested return just isn't a fit for Montreal.The only plausible thing you could have said for this very average 3C made of porcelain.
This isn't NHL24, making trades just to make trades is just a waste of time.Just sideways move. Unless another trade coming
Montreal has Reinbacher and Mailloux coming up, and likely haven't given up on Barron, with Savard and Kovasevic still filling roles for the time being. Adding a RD right now just doesn't make sense. Might as well just extend Kovasevic as a 3d pairing RD.
I'm not exactly pumping his tires here, but the suggested return just isn't a fit for Montreal.
Value favors MTL.
Montreal doesn't really need Fabbro until they deal Savard and if the kids (Reinbacher/Mailloux) aren't ready yet. Personally, I'd prefer dealing him for Kovacevic if Nashville wants to save salary. I doubt the value would be there for Nashville though.
Nashville doesn't really need Dvorak, if they want an upgrade at C, a cheaper (or better one for the salary) will likely be available in UFA.
Abstract value, per se, is pretty meaningless. Adding a surplus player at a position with depth just forces another deal, and other GMs would know Montreal would be in a position of weakness, needing to move a RD ASAP. Getting Fabbro for theoretically lesser assets is meaningless if Montreal then has to sell Fabbro at a discount.Talked about it earlier, value still favors Montreal.
At 25, he's not bringing anything to the table we don't already have and no one is going to accuse him of having a higher ceiling the Reinbacher or Mailioux. Neither is he going to push past Savard, Kova or maybe not even Barron.Abstract value, per se, is pretty meaningless. Adding a surplus player at a position with depth just forces another deal, and other GMs would know Montreal would be in a position of weakness, needing to move a RD ASAP. Getting Fabbro for theoretically lesser assets is meaningless if Montreal then has to sell Fabbro at a discount.
.
And for Nashville we don't need a 3C, we have Sissons for that who is also durable. I don't mind trading Fabbro, its just the proposal doesn't really fill a need we couldn't do cheaper. Dvorak is more a player you take on because you are getting paid to free up cap, you don't really trade an asset for him.At 25, he's not bringing anything to the table we don't already have and no one is going to accuse him of having a higher ceiling the Reinbacher or Mailioux. Neither is he going to push past Savard, Kova or maybe not even Barron.
Worse is that we're adding on the wrong side of the ledger. We need to improve our offense, not add defensive help.
This is a NHL2000 trade.
Montreal does not have cap issues and is under no pressure to rid themselves of someone with one year left on his contract. Montreal also has no need for Dante Fabbro (Nashville has no need for Dvorak, according to Preds fans), so there is no deal to be made involving these two players.Fabbro has positive value while Dvorak is negative value. The Habs would need to add significantly to balance the deal.
No one rebuilding pays significant value to acquire a 3rd pair D and cap space we don't really need.Fabbro has positive value while Dvorak is negative value. The Habs would need to add significantly to balance the deal.
Why do you reply to Habs fans saying the deal doesn't work for them by saying Montreal needs to add ? It makes no sense to give *more* assets when a deal doesn't fill a need in any way, regardless of the fact the deal doesn't work for Nashville either.And for Nashville we don't need a 3C, we have Sissons for that who is also durable. I don't mind trading Fabbro, its just the proposal doesn't really fill a need we couldn't do cheaper. Dvorak is more a player you take on because you are getting paid to free up cap, you don't really trade an asset for him.
I didn't say they need to add? I said Dvorak is the type of player a team like Nashville takes on as a cap dump and is paid to take, it's the only reason we would have any interest at all in doing so.Why do you reply to Habs fans saying the deal doesn't work for them by saying Montreal needs to add ? It makes no sense to give *more* assets when a deal doesn't fill a need in any way, regardless of the fact the deal doesn't work for Nashville either.