HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #84: Off-Season edition

[Habs Halifax]

Might be more a function of trying to play through his injury. The better he plays, the more interest from outside of Winnipeg and better chance of not only leaving but getting paid. Doubt he’s producing less because he’s not motivated.

Could be a number of factors. Can't remember exactly when they moved Connor off his line. It's been a month or more I believe.

Not like I think he sucks without Connor. Suzuki's number slipped without Caufield. Just worth noting

 

[Habs 4 Life]

From everything I've read -- and there has been a lot on this thread -- about the subject of trading for Dubois, I thought this was clear eons ago, pretty much shared by any proponents of trading for Dubois.

There is a limit -- with building in mind -- to what should be given up for Dubois. Of course, there can be some difference of opinion between some posters as to what that limit is.

To all, I believe, Dach and Suzuki are off the table, as is Caufield, Guhle and Xhekaj.

But, to some, with a projected C-Line of Suzuki - Dubois - Dach - Evans, sacrificing Beck makes plenty of sense, perhaps?

But the sentiment that you mustn't give away the farm for Dubois is there, within reason.

Agreed, but I wouldn't be opposed to trade a young player say like Jordan Harris +

Again, it needs to make sense on our end or kent shouldn't be interested. Cannot just throw the farm for him

 

[Habs Halifax]

Literally every single point of conversation about Dubois has been repeated like 25 times. I've given up complaining about it.

The only thing that this thread generally misses is what the likely cost of Dubois would actually be (both in trade and a new contract). Because most of the common proposals on here don't really match the market comparables.

What do you think the market comparables are? Deeper than the Horvat or Trouba trades? Repeating yourself on HF boards is a real thing cause it's an open conversation with many others where new ones jump in all the time. This is clearly not a one time conversation and it's a story that's not going away

If so, why?

If not, how lower do you go?

So, explain yourself? Why can't this be a Trouba or Horvat trade value and his contract looks like Hintz, Horvat, or Larkin? Back up your "actually" narrative?

 

[Whalers Fan]

I’d be happy to say “let’s see how it plays out” if it wasn’t an identical scenario as with Bergevin’s tenure where many people insist that the GM did everything correctly for months and months until the whole thing falls apart.

I do not see similarities at all with Bergevin. Bergy came in here stating the team would build through youth, yet his actions never supported that. Bergy lacked vision and never had a real plan. His moves were almost entirely reactionary.

Hughes has been on the job for only 14 months. Coming in, the focus was on rebuilding, and the moves have been in support of that vision. He acquired more additional first round picks in his first 6 months here than Bergevin did in 10 years -- and that one Marc did get was only because he mishandled KK, and he immediately traded the pick away. Whether Hughes moves work out enough to transform the team into a contender remains to be seen, but at least they appear to be in alignment with that goal.

 

[salbutera]

I do not see similarities at all with Bergevin. Bergy came in here stating the team would build through youth, yet his actions never supported that. Bergy lacked vision and never had a real plan. His moves were almost entirely reactionary.

Hughes has been on the job for only 14 months. Coming in, the focus was on rebuilding, and the moves have been in support of that vision. He acquired more additional first round picks in his first 6 months here than Bergevin did in 10 years -- and that one Marc did get was only because he mishandled KK, and he immediately traded the pick away. Whether Hughes moves work out enough to transform the team into a contender remains to be seen, but at least they appear to be in alignment with that goal.

Because the faith he put in his scouting director never manifested into any concrete assets…

2012 & 2013 drafts damaged his tenure beyond recoup - 7 top-60 picks, only Lekhonen ever panned out and remains an NHL regular

 

[salbutera]

L

 

[Habs Halifax]

Because the faith he put in his scouting director never manifested into any concrete assets…

2012 & 2013 drafts damaged his tenure beyond recoup - 7 top-60 picks, only Lekhonen ever panned out and remains an NHL regular

12 and 13 drafts were disappointing. Galchenyuk was a good pick until he was not. Lehkonen was likely the best pick in that 2nd round.

Seemed like good draft power in weak drafts. Who did we miss out on?

 

[salbutera]

12 and 13 drafts were disappointing. Galchenyuk was a good pick until he was not. Lehkonen was likely the best pick in that 2nd round.

Seemed like good draft power in weak drafts. Who did we miss out on?

Parayko, Slavin, Pesce, Guentzle…

 

[Captain Mountain]

The same applies the other way, right?

If it’s inconclusive with not enough data points you cannot claim that he played the TDL correctly — can you? It’s inconclusive.

I’d be happy to say “let’s see how it plays out” if it wasn’t an identical scenario as with Bergevin’s tenure where many people insist that the GM did everything correctly for months and months until the whole thing falls apart.

So by all means, let’s see how it plays out but don’t go on and insist that he played the TDL as well as he could — it’s inconclusive.

But that doesn't make any sense.

For one, its not an identical scenario because the approaches are different. Bergevin mostly just cleaned up the cap situation a bit. He didn't make many big trades and he didn't sell much off or acquire futures. The first time he acquired a top-60 pick was a 2016 2nd on July 1, 2014, over two years into his tenure. HuGo have been far more aggressive in accruing futures and inherited a much worse team.

For another, you can only make judgements in the moment. Bergevin came in and bought out Gomez and made a few small moves that paid off in the short term, since Montreal made the playoffs and were competitive immediately. Bergevin didn't have much to do with it, but his minor moves generally paid off and he got core guys to sign cheap long term contracts which helped in the long run.

HuGo haven't had team success lately, but I'm not sure anyone could reasonably expect a team with that many holes which was projected to not be cap compliant in 2023. They've acquired picks, prospects and young players and started cleaning up the cap mess while modernizing the front office.

My other issue is that, more often than not, micro-analysis of Bergevin's moves shows him as decent manager. The issue isn't the moves, it was the approach. HuGo appear to have a more coherent approach and the majority of their moves have been good. You can hold that view while still not being confident that they'll be able to turn the team around.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

My other issue is that, more often than not, micro-analysis of Bergevin's moves shows him as decent manager. The issue isn't the moves, it was the approach. HuGo appear to have a more coherent approach and the majority of their moves have been good. You can hold that view while still not being confident that they'll be able to turn the team around.

Do you consider him decent at managing contracts? If so, how do you reconcile that notion with the contractual situation that HuGo inherited, where many forwards and a goalie (mercifully now on LTIR) are untradeable?

 

[Captain Mountain]

Do you consider him decent at managing contracts? If so, how do you reconcile that notion with the contractual situation that HuGo inherited, where many forwards and a goalie (mercifully now on LTIR) are untradeable?

Are we talking about the first couple of years into his tenure? When he locked up Price, Pacioretty and Gallagher to long-term, sweetheart deals, cleared the extra years of Cole's contract off the books in the Ryder trade, and used compliance buyouts to get rid of the Gomez and Kaberle contracts?

Would you argue that was less than decent?

Later in his tenure he was awful, but people seem to already forgot what a big deal it was having two high end wingers and a top goalie locked up long term for under 15 mil a year.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a PPG level player get slammed by their own fanbase as much as Miller. That alone makes me not wanna touch that contract.

Yeah, but that could make him "cheap" to acquire.

Term is too long. Even for contenders who can fit him in. 5 year term from age 30-34 would be more ideal.

This is basically it. If it was a year, or 2 shorter would be better.

Whether it's a good idea, or not, Habs aren't in the position to go for him, so hopefully they don't.

Gotta draft well, sign well and trade well. Or at least get players from at least 2 forms.

You can't draft a team. You can't trade for a team and you definitely can't sign a team.

Just have to hope the team battles hard, but loses until the offseason.

 

[JoelWarlord]

The same applies the other way, right?

If it’s inconclusive with not enough data points you cannot claim that he played the TDL correctly — can you? It’s inconclusive.

No, but we have data points that show they did a good job selling veterans at last year's deadline and did well moving on from both Petry and Romanov in the summer. They've demonstrated that they're not shy about moving veterans or even selling high on young players like Romanov if it makes sense, and they did even manage to move on from Dadonov.

In that context, I don't think it makes much sense to view this deadline as an indication of much other than Drouin sucking and Monahan & Edmundson being made of glass. It's not that the FO is beyond reproach or that fans are obligated to be "positive" until proven otherwise, but your premise here is essentially arguing that the deadline was a self-evidently "bad" showing because they didn't get much done, so we need to account for it as a "bad" data point in contrast to other moves to have a balanced perspective and avoid being cheerleaders. Injury management is something that does need to be addressed but also sometimes hockey players with hundreds of NHL games of mileage on them just break down in their late 20s without it being anybody's fault in particular.

Otherwise I just don't think it makes sense to view this year's deadline as a "bad" data point in terms of what we can expect from the team going forward. We had three UFAs to potentially sell and they managed to sell one. The other two were a forward who went 15 months between goals and another player who we already received a 1st to take on as a salary dump because he's so notoriously injury prone who got another injury. If there's nothing to sell there's nothing to sell so I'm not going to apply a negative grade to my perception of the front office going forward because they couldn't convince a team to take eg. Savard with 2.5 years left.

 

[Miller Time]

In that scenario, both Monahan and Evans have been injury-prone, and we have already discussed that Beck may not be ready for the NHL. That center group is pretty shaky, IMO.

well, yes... season 2 of a pretty significant re-tool where there is still 20-30M$ of bad veteran cap hits on the book from the previous regime makes it a given that many areas will be "pretty shaky" from a playoff/contender lens.

For a team in our situation? I'd say Suzuki-Dach-Monahan-Evans/Beck is a pretty great C group to be working with... especially if Monahan is on a 1-year deal and he/team are not shy about shopping him to a contender approaching the deadline, assuming he can have a healthy year.

upgrading the C group with a PLD or some other clear top-6 upgrade that is a long term fit is the only alternative that makes sense as far as improving the C group.

 

[Miller Time]

I agree he didn't have an excess of cards to play but he's the GM and he's responsible for the medical department's performance, the draft picks he's chosen (and rushed to the NHL for no reason), the expectations he sets on the trade market, and so on. Taking a step back and looking at the picture says that we didn't do well at the TDL -- other teams amassed futures and draft capital and we did not.

I don't have much more criticism at this time but there is definitely an argument to be made that this TDL prior to the 2023 draft was a missed opportunity.

We're not GMs, we don't know the prices and the discussions -- we knew that Monahan was injured (for dubious and oft-hidden injury reports), we knew that Drouin and Dadanov were nearly worthless, we knew that Eddy was injured, etc. But we don't know what was offered for Anderson or Dvorak, we don't know what offers he turned down, we don't know if he played hardball and fell on his ass. We'll likely never know any of that.

My thesis was that selling Dvorak was vital to our interests in completing this tank year. I would've sold him for very little to help ensure we draft top5. Whatever amount we recover from selling him later is not worth the difference between a 10OA pick and a 5OA pick, no in this season's draft, anyway.

Otherwise, I agree -- we don't need to raise the rabble and call for his head, nor do we need to take bullets for him and chastise those who are disappointed. It is still too early.

CC @Runner77

yeah... still not seeing anything that reflects a legit criticism to the actual decisions made. That the situation is disappointing is a different question... not sure you'd find anyone that isn't disappointed we couldn't add additional first round capital or quality prospects this year. Considering that's exactly what Hughes did last year, and did nothing this summer of this season to directly make short-term improvements to the roster, I think it's only fair to acknowledge that the focus of the decision-making has stayed on the mid-long term goal of improving the roster... that the opportunity didn't show up the same way this year as it did last season reflects the roster and market rather than the approach.

the injury situation of our roster and Dvorak's mediocre play undermine the argument that moving him was "vital to our tank interests"... he'd have been moved if a deal deemed reasonable/met the asking price emmerged. Can't really critique that decision until Dvorak finally does get moved & it surfaced that another team offered more prior to the deadline... i just don't see that as likely and to @Runner77 's point, it would require time to see that play out. The "thesis" that moving him would "ensure" a top 5 draft spot is... dubious would be the most polite term that comes to mind.

We aren't GM's, we only know the moves that were made and the direct GM comments that surfaced around the deadline (i.e Flyers attempt and inability to find a market for JVR even at 50% retained)... those data points all support the notion that there wasn't much/if any market for Drouin, no market for mediocre players with term, and at best a soft market for assets like Anderson/Dvorak/Edmundson.

We don't know what offers he turned down, we do know that he has consistently stated and demonstrated that he works from a set value-point and will move as aggressively or patiently as the situation allows for in achieving that price. That approach is a good one, imo, and his consistency in executing on it a source of appreciation rather than critique, imo.

 

[salbutera]

But that doesn't make any sense.

For one, its not an identical scenario because the approaches are different. Bergevin mostly just cleaned up the cap situation a bit. He didn't make many big trades and he didn't sell much off or acquire futures. The first time he acquired a top-60 pick was a 2016 2nd on July 1, 2014, over two years into his tenure. HuGo have been far more aggressive in accruing futures and inherited a much worse team.

For another, you can only make judgements in the moment. Bergevin came in and bought out Gomez and made a few small moves that paid off in the short term, since Montreal made the playoffs and were competitive immediately. Bergevin didn't have much to do with it, but his minor moves generally paid off and he got core guys to sign cheap long term contracts which helped in the long run.

HuGo haven't had team success lately, but I'm not sure anyone could reasonably expect a team with that many holes which was projected to not be cap compliant in 2023. They've acquired picks, prospects and young players and started cleaning up the cap mess while modernizing the front office.

My other issue is that, more often than not, micro-analysis of Bergevin's moves shows him as decent manager. The issue isn't the moves, it was the approach. HuGo appear to have a more coherent approach and the majority of their moves have been good. You can hold that view while still not being confident that they'll be able to turn the team around.

MB seemed very good at managing the 2nd / 3rd contracts of his players where he held leverage position and was able to get players to agree to hometown discounts, mediocre at managing pending UFA contracts.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Are we talking about the first couple of years into his tenure?

I don't recall my mentioning the first couple years. Do you? How is possible to parse that from a two-line answer?

Ultimately, he dug a hole for himself whereby only getting fired and landing elsewhere would extricate him from it.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I don't recall mentioning the first couple years. Do you? How is possible to parse that in a two-line answer?

Dude, you replied to my post about looking at the early tenures of GMs.

 

[Whalers Fan]

well, yes... season 2 of a pretty significant re-tool where there is still 20-30M$ of bad veteran cap hits on the book from the previous regime makes it a given that many areas will be "pretty shaky" from a playoff/contender lens.

For a team in our situation? I'd say Suzuki-Dach-Monahan-Evans/Beck is a pretty great C group to be working with... especially if Monahan is on a 1-year deal and he/team are not shy about shopping him to a contender approaching the deadline, assuming he can have a healthy year.

upgrading the C group with a PLD or some other clear top-6 upgrade that is a long term fit is the only alternative that makes sense as far as improving the C group.

When I said shaky, I meant as being reliably available to be in the lineup. Of your center group of Suzuki, Dach, Monahan, Evans/Beck, only Suzuki will have played a full NHL schedule this season. The others will have missed a significant number of games. Dach will have played the most at 54, Evans played 43, Monahan 25, and Beck had a cup of coffee with the team.

I would use the terms fragile or brittle to describe the group -- not deep.

 

[Miller Time]

When I said shaky, I meant as being reliably available to be in the lineup. Of your center group of Suzuki, Dach, Monahan, Evans/Beck, only Suzuki will have played a full NHL schedule this season. The others will have missed a significant number of games. Dach will have played the most at 54, Evans played 43, Monahan 25, and Beck had a cup of coffee with the team.

I would use the terms fragile or brittle to describe the group -- not deep.

great... now do our winger group...

Caufield, Slaf, Anderson, Armia, Gallagher, Hoffman... only Anderson who didn't miss signficant time this year, but he has in the past.

how about D?
Mattheson, Savard, Edmundson, Ghule, Xhekaj, Harris... only Harris who didn't miss significant time this year.

C group, brittle. Check
W group, brittle. Check
D group, brittle. Check


Here's the thing about coming out of a season with league leading games lost to injury... you have a lot of players that didn't play a full season. That's all that tells you. Provides very little informative insight into what injuries will look like next year. You might recall that in 2011-12, habs also led the league in injury-games lost (leading us to the bottom 3 finish)... what came next was 3 straight years where we had the least games-lost to injury during that span (leading to inflated sense of MB/MT success and the dreaded extension that followed).

bottom line, swapping Monahan for Dvorak going into next year certainly does replace a relatively healthy track record C for a relatively injury-prone C... does that mean our C group as a whole is therefore "too brittle"? I don't buy that.

 

[ML16]

Habs and Avs are the two front runners IMO. I can see Dubois considering the Avs as well. What do you think the Avs can offer as their best offer? Newhook, Girard, their 20+ 1st? Avs have to send a contract back to make the cap work IMO and Girard is likely. Wonder how the Jets would feel about that?

Jets will probably ask for Dach or Slaf and we laugh in their face. Beck could be one we spare. Imagine if Gorton/Hughes really make them upset and offer Anderson and Beck only? They ask for the Panthers pick and Hughes says, no deal. .

Besides Colorado, I think the Habs' most dangerous rival in acquiring Dubois's rights this summer (or signing him as UFA in 2024) will actually be the Boston Bruins, especially with both their 2 top-6 C (Bergeron and Krejci) nearing retirement...

For this reason - and the short window of opportunity provided by the last season of the "frozen cap era" to potentially sign Dubois 8 years at max. 8.5M AAV - the Habs should seriously consider pulling the trigger this summer.

Two packages I think could be sustainable, asset-management-wise :

A. Dubois + Dillon vs CGY'S 2025 (or 2024... or 2026!) 1st + MTL's 2023 2nd + Dvorak + Harris

B. Dubois vs FLA's 2023 1st + Dvorak + Ylonen + ("B+ prospect")

In option A, the high 2nd round pick compensate for the fact that the Flames' 1st is not in 2023. And since Calagry is trending in the wrong direction, might be enticing for the Jets to gamble on a Flames' collapŝe before long. Harris provides a cost-effective young LHD to replace Dillon and the cap savings (2.5M) on the Jets' part would take care of more than half of Dvorak's incoming salary.

In option B, FLA's 2023 1st (12-15 range), Ylonen and a "B+ Prospect" as incentives for the Dubois / Dvorak swap.

Both options are obviously under the assumption that the Jets decide to cut their potential loss this summer, which is not unlikely since if they don't trade Dubois because they want to squeeze another Cup run of his RFA years, they likely won't trade him at TDL 2024 either and thus risk losing everything aftwerwards.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Besides Colorado, I think the Habs' most dangerous rival in acquiring Dubois's rights this summer (or signing him as UFA in 2024) will actually be the Boston Bruins, especially with both their 2 top-6 C (Bergeron and Krejci) nearing retirement...

For this reason - and the short window of opportunity provided by the last season of the "frozen cap era" to potentially sign Dubois 8 years at max. 8.5M AAV - the Habs should seriously consider pulling the trigger this summer.

Two packages I think could be sustainable, asset-management-wise :

A. Dubois + Dillon vs CGY'S 2025 (or 2024... or 2026!) 1st + MTL's 2023 2nd + Dvorak + Harris

B. Dubois vs FLA's 2023 1st + Dvorak + Ylonen + ("B+ prospect")

In option A, the high 2nd round pick compensate for the fact that the Flames' 1st is not in 2023. And since Calagry is trending in the wrong direction, might be enticing for the Jets to gamble on a Flames' collapŝe before long. Harris provides a cost-effective young LHD to replace Dillon and the cap savings (2.5M) on the Jets' part would take care of more than half of Dvorak's incoming salary.

In option B, FLA's 2023 1st (12-15 range), Ylonen and a "B+ Prospect" as incentives for the Dubois / Dvorak swap.

Both options are obviously under the assumption that the Jets decide to cut their potential loss this summer, which is not unlikely since if they don't trade Dubois because they want to squeeze another Cup run of his RFA years, they likely won't trade him at TDL 2024 either and thus risk losing everything aftwerwards.

This makes sense to me. A lot of posters are thinking that this is in the bag, just wait out the UFA eligibility, but I don't believe that this is a binary event. Colorado, Boston and other teams will make a pitch to the Jets for his services, and Dubois will happily sign there. He could be using Montreal as leverage, like so many before him.

 

[Whalers Fan]

bottom line, swapping Monahan for Dvorak going into next year certainly does replace a relatively healthy track record C for a relatively injury-prone C... does that mean our C group as a whole is therefore "too brittle"? I don't buy that.

Evans has also been injury-prone in his career.

 

[WG]

I do not see similarities at all with Bergevin. Bergy came in here stating the team would build through youth, yet his actions never supported that. Bergy lacked vision and never had a real plan. His moves were almost entirely reactionary.

Hughes has been on the job for only 14 months. Coming in, the focus was on rebuilding, and the moves have been in support of that vision. He acquired more additional first round picks in his first 6 months here than Bergevin did in 10 years -- and that one Marc did get was only because he mishandled KK, and he immediately traded the pick away. Whether Hughes moves work out enough to transform the team into a contender remains to be seen, but at least they appear to be in alignment with that goal.

Said it once, said it plenty of times. It's clear what Bergevin meant about building with youth with the lens of hindsight.

He came from Chicago, how did they build their Cup team? They were bad for a long time, then they were *really* bad, added Kane and Toews with two top 3 picks to a burgeoning core, and voila.

When MB said 'build through the draft' he figured he had 3OV coming in and he'd have one or two more years of high picks and then away we go. So, basically a 'plan' that any random fan on the call in shows could have conceived. And when the team was better than that, and there were no more high picks to use, you are correct that there was no plan, just whining that you can't find good players late in the draft and that the draft is just throwing darts anyway.

 

[sandviper]

12 and 13 drafts were disappointing. Galchenyuk was a good pick until he was not. Lehkonen was likely the best pick in that 2nd round.

Seemed like good draft power in weak drafts. Who did we miss out on?

Irony of the 2012 draft… guys we ”missed” on with over 400 NHL games are Anderson, Tierney and Matheson, all 3 who are Habs now. Paquette was another, and we got him also eventually.

2013, I wanted Theodore. Not sure if he would had moved the needle for us, but certainly better than McCarron.