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

[Scriptor]

I don’t think it’s aggressive at all to expect some kind a hometown discount from the UFA market. I’m not talking about not paying him, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to get the Tavares treatment where you’re not being forced to bid up because your offer isn’t the highest on the table.

The Tavares treatment? He signed for 11M, FFS!

The imagined discount is based on rumours that SJ offered him 13M?

Market value, in its purest sense isn't based on ONE crazy number from a desperate GM, IMO. It's based on what many teams would be willing to fork out to get the player.

It's not because Edmonton was obliged to pay Penner the way they did to attract a RFA there with a hostile offer (after Vanek, I believe, refused) that Penner's market vale was what Edmonton offered?

I expect Dubois not to try to milk the Habs for every last penny, but, as I showed, contract structure can make the 8M AAV that Dubois would be offered, in the end, worth around 8.75M per year.

I m going to predict we give up Florida 's 1st and Dvorak and maybe a little something else that's it... Winnipeg is not in the driver's seat here

I surely hope you are right, but I'm suggesting WIN wouldn't be balking at the offer I proposed is all.

 

[Scriptor]

I'll be honest, it seems like you're really reading between the lines there. It sounds like you think Hughes will be more aggressive than he has been or has suggested he will be. He's going to look for opportunities, but he spends A LOT more time talking about internal growth than trading futures for young guys.

"... but again, we’re hopeful we have opportunities to trade for good, young players like a Kirby Dach, instead of using a draft pick for it. We’ll try to do that, and that’s kind of a way to expedite the timeline."

How was that reading between the lines?

The next phrase point blank starts, "We'll try to do that," with Hughes explaining that this is how he intends to try and expedite the timeline to becoming contenders again.

How is that not direct and clear? He's not saying, if an offer comes across our table, we might look in that direction. He's saying that this is his intention. After that, we don't know if opportunities will be available.

But, anyone maintaining that it's simply interpretation doesn't have top-notch reading comprehension. Unless, Hughes was misquoted?

Right away, Hughes then cuts off conjecture that he might make moves aimed at short term improvement that would just allow us to make the playoffs next year, "But we won’t go sign a 28-year-old or 29-year-old to a long-term deal at this point in time to be that much better next season."

It's also not the first time that Hughes talks about this. Early on, when expelling how he saw drafting, he said that, any time he could use the pick to acquire a comparable, talented player picked at a similar spot, but in an earlier draft, he would prefer to a acquire the player picked in an earlier draft with his pick, provided, of course, that the player had remaining upside and was still progressing in his development.

No reading between the lines about how Hughes would prefer to rebuild. Again, beyond that, it's a question of finding opportunities or not? Thinking that Dubois is perceived as an opportunity. Whether a trade that is pleasing both to WIN and MON can be arrived at is a different question?

 

[Scriptor]

IQ can make up for slower skating, to some degree. Due to smarts, Corey Perry is still in the NHL rather than retired, but he is not making 28 year old Toffoli money, nor even 33 year old Perry money.

Perry's smarts and hockey sense certainly help him, but he's also quite physical and willing to play a blue collar role in areas that take their toll on your body.

A finesse player that has slowed down and has good hockey sense can generally still play decent defence by cutting off angles and anticipating plays in order to get into position earlier (not to lose a foot race), but, offensively, he won't get the same separation from an opponent to give him time and space to make plays. If he's also not equipped (or willing) to stay in the pay zones to produce offensively, his production level is bound to go down, despite the good hockey sense.

Still, I'm sure there is always the exception to the rule to confirm the rule, like Robitaille who, to begin with, was never a fast player and still scored goals to sell to you, your children and your grandchildren. Surely, some exceptions will/can adapt to losing speed? It's not a hard fast rule, but it applies more often than not, IMO.

 

[Andy]

If tha bad luck is management not building a winner, sure. Bad D, bad goaltending, bad depth. The Gazillions forked over for three players doesn't help, but that's still on management.

This is a very immature take.

 

[Scriptor]

So what did you actually mean when you said "Seriously, if this guy is a 4th liner when we are contenders, we aren't contenders."

I meant we can easily do better than Pezzetta and that will make the team a better contender. But, semantics are great to feel good about yourself.

It's a bit of grandstanding to state that Pezzetta is far from the Cat's Meow, even as a 4th liner. Montreal, when they are contenders, can easily do better than Pezzetta, for the same price and I would expect them to do as much. Pretty straightforward, actually.

If you don't read the intent of the post and analyze word for word, you can question anything.

Hey, I'll say I was wrong, if that makes you feel better?

But my point remains the same.

You can address your reading comprehension rather than take a stance on a hill looking to pick out the potential flaw in the detail while reading with blinders on.

But, hey, that might just be more conducive to discussion and we certainly wouldn't want that, would we?

You seem to like Pezzetta in his 4th line role. That's fine.

I think he's a bland, imminently replaceable player and I expect a contending MON team to aim higher.

Simple as that.

 

[Scriptor]

This is a very immature take.

How is that immature? The point is mature analysis and valid, IMO. Spending too much on three players is a choice that leads to lack of depth because of lack of Cap room. Management, beyond that, could have made better choices as to whom they acquired to fill the rest of the roster, but, as mentioned by another poster (Baseball Coach?), they could also have kept Kadri at a much lesser cap hit and gotten a similar production to what they got from Tavares, for example.

Chalking it all off as simply bad luck is flawed.

Or in your way of responding. It's naive and childlike a take. Does that sound better to you?

 

[Sorinth]

I meant we can easily do better than Pezzetta and that will make the team a better contender. But, semantics are great to feel good about yourself.

It's a bit of grandstanding to state that Pezzetta is far from the Cat's Meow, even as a 4th liner. Montreal, when they are contenders, can easily do better than Pezzetta, for the same price and I would expect them to do as much. Pretty straightforward, actually.

If you don't read the intent of the post and analyze word for word, you can question anything.

Hey, I'll say I was wrong, if that makes you feel better?

But my point remains the same.

You can address your reading comprehension rather than take a stance on a hill looking to pick out the potential flaw in the detail while reading with blinders on.

But, hey, that might just be more conducive to discussion and we certainly wouldn't want that, would we?

You seem to like Pezzetta in his 4th line role. That's fine.

I think he's a bland, imminently replaceable player and I expect a contending MON team to aim higher.

Simple as that.

You seem to have taken this super personal and I have no idea why. If you meant that Pezzetta sucks and said something stupid you should expect to be called out on the stupid thing you said. And for the record I don't care whether you admit you were wrong or not, I'm not the one who needs to feel better about the situation, I wasn't the one who said something absurd so I feel fine. But honestly I still don't know if the intent of the post was just to sh*t on Pezzetta for some unkown reason or you actually think whether a teams 4th line could be the difference between being a contender or not.

My position on Pezzetta is of course we can do better, he's a fairly average 4th liner which means there's easily 300+ better NHL forwards then him. But no 4th liner has any impact on whether a team would be considered a contender or not. You are considered a contender based on your good players you have not the 4th liners, not the bottom pairing D, not the backup goalie or any other role player.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

This is a very immature take.

It’s immature to think a team that hasn’t won a round in two decade might just not be a good team? Lmfao

 

[Andy]

It’s immature to think a team that hasn’t won a round in two decade might just not be a good team? Lmfao

They;ve been a top team for several years and outside the habs have played other top teams in the first round.

Bad matchups (which happen) have been a bigger issue than roster issues.

 

[Scriptor]

You seem to have taken this super personal and I have no idea why. If you meant that Pezzetta sucks and said something stupid you should expect to be called out on the stupid thing you said. And for the record I don't care whether you admit you were wrong or not, I'm not the one who needs to feel better about the situation, I wasn't the one who said something absurd so I feel fine. But honestly I still don't know if the intent of the post was just to sh*t on Pezzetta for some unkown reason or you actually think whether a teams 4th line could be the difference between being a contender or not.

My position on Pezzetta is of course we can do better, he's a fairly average 4th liner which means there's easily 300+ better NHL forwards then him. But no 4th liner has any impact on whether a team would be considered a contender or not. You are considered a contender based on your good players you have not the 4th liners, not the bottom pairing D, not the backup goalie or any other role player.

I disagree in that depth makes a difference and 4th liners are part of that depth, but, honestly, I'm not going to argue that I will pick a better 4th liner over Pezzetta and consider that this makes us more of a contender than having Suzuki as a top-6 C.

That you can make this about that is as frivolous as you purport my statement to be.

If you can't start from that basis in your reading comprehension, that's a lot more alarming than the hyperbole I used to make a point.

Some people can't understand hyperbole. Sone can't understand sarcasm. It's par for the course, I guess, so I know everything must be stated at face value for you, or it comes across as absurd.

Ah well...

 

[Scriptor]

They;ve been a top team for several years and outside the habs have played other top teams in the first round.

Bad matchups (which happen) have been a bigger issue than roster issues.

Hey, Andy, go back to the Leafs' forum and circle jerk with those posters.

First series exit 2022
First series exit 2021
First series exit 2020
First series exit 2019
First series exit 2018
First series exit 2017
No series play 2016
No series play 2015
No series play 2014
Quarterfinals exit 2013
No series in 2012
No series in 2011
No series in 2010
No series in 2009
No series in 2008
No series in 2007
No series in 2006

When bad luck spans over 17 years, with the exception of one SINGULAR year in 2013, where the team went to the quarterfinals against BOS (where they got eliminated), including a first round exit in the last SIX consecutive years, it becomes a habit and is not longer bad luck.

It's on management and how they assembled the team, in the first place and, then, it's on the star players, especially over the last six years, and how they choked in the playoffs.

This post may not sound friendly, but that's how I react when someone is trying to stick a poplar tree up my arse and calling it a toothpick I shouldn't be too concerned about.

Please, get a grip on Leaf Land reality and stop calling it unfortunate circumstances, bad luck, bad matchups, the wrong alignement of the stars, or whatever you want to pass off as the excuse for the Leafs failing to perform during 16 of the last 17 years, with their quarterfinal appearance against Boston, as much as TEN YEARS AGO, being the only respectful showing for their fans!

Yeah, but they scored some pretty goals during the regular season and did pretty good on some occasions then, when it really doesn't count, along the way...

Malarkey, the same way Montreal sucked in seasons when they won their division with 100+ points, off of strong starts under the coaching brilliance (sarcasm, if you didn't get it) of Michel Therrien, only to fall apart when the play got tighter and tougher in the playoffs.

It's not just the Leafs. Other teams have been built as pretty regular season teams that, despite promise and some spectacular players when the coverage isn't as tight, don't even have any A-Game to bring come playoff time.

Just look at things honestly, please and don't try to make a crock pot out of BS as ingredients.

What's listed above are the facts. The rest is just fantasy.

It's insulting to my (immature, I think that's what it's been called) intelligence.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I would add Dobes to the list of prospects to hold until and unless an even better G prospect is on our books.

I totally agree with you on that.
Reason I didn't add him is because of all the rumours of Hugo trading for a goalie.

 

[sampollock]

I totally agree with you on that.
Reason I didn't add him is because of all the rumours of Hugo trading for a goalie.

would be a soild move. get a young goalie to develop

 

[Captain Mountain]

"... but again, we’re hopeful we have opportunities to trade for good, young players like a Kirby Dach, instead of using a draft pick for it. We’ll try to do that, and that’s kind of a way to expedite the timeline."

How was that reading between the lines?

The next phrase point blank starts, "We'll try to do that," with Hughes explaining that this is how he intends to try and expedite the timeline to becoming contenders again.

How is that not direct and clear? He's not saying, if an offer comes across our table, we might look in that direction. He's saying that this is his intention. After that, we don't know if opportunities will be available.

But, anyone maintaining that it's simply interpretation doesn't have top-notch reading comprehension. Unless, Hughes was misquoted?

Right away, Hughes then cuts off conjecture that he might make moves aimed at short term improvement that would just allow us to make the playoffs next year, "But we won’t go sign a 28-year-old or 29-year-old to a long-term deal at this point in time to be that much better next season."

It's also not the first time that Hughes talks about this. Early on, when expelling how he saw drafting, he said that, any time he could use the pick to acquire a comparable, talented player picked at a similar spot, but in an earlier draft, he would prefer to a acquire the player picked in an earlier draft with his pick, provided, of course, that the player had remaining upside and was still progressing in his development.

No reading between the lines about how Hughes would prefer to rebuild. Again, beyond that, it's a question of finding opportunities or not? Thinking that Dubois is perceived as an opportunity. Whether a trade that is pleasing both to WIN and MON can be arrived at is a different question?

I already provided the context and was correct that the poster I was replying to was missing context.

That's also way too italicized to try to figure out what you're trying to argue, though from what I can tell you're arguing against a position I don't hold and never presented.

Cool rant I guess?

 

[Scriptor]

I already provided the context and was correct that the poster I was replying to was missing context.

That's also way too italicized to try to figure out what you're trying to argue, though from what I can tell you're arguing against a position I don't hold and never presented.

Cool rant I guess?

Sorry if I misunderstood your position, but still don't understand it, I believe.

 

[Andy]

Hey, Andy, go back to the Leafs' forum and circle jerk with those posters.

First series exit 2022
First series exit 2021
First series exit 2020
First series exit 2019
First series exit 2018
First series exit 2017
No series play 2016
No series play 2015
No series play 2014
Quarterfinals exit 2013
No series in 2012
No series in 2011
No series in 2010
No series in 2009
No series in 2008
No series in 2007
No series in 2006

When bad luck spans over 17 years, with the exception of one SINGULAR year in 2013, where the team went to the quarterfinals against BOS (where they got eliminated), including a first round exit in the last SIX consecutive years, it becomes a habit and is not longer bad luck.

It's on management and how they assembled the team, in the first place and, then, it's on the star players, especially over the last six years, and how they choked in the playoffs.

This post may not sound friendly, but that's how I react when someone is trying to stick a poplar tree up my arse and calling it a toothpick I shouldn't be too concerned about.

Please, get a grip on Leaf Land reality and stop calling it unfortunate circumstances, bad luck, bad matchups, the wrong alignement of the stars, or whatever you want to pass off as the excuse for the Leafs failing to perform during 16 of the last 17 years, with their quarterfinal appearance against Boston, as much as TEN YEARS AGO, being the only respectful showing for their fans!

Yeah, but they scored some pretty goals during the regular season and did pretty good on some occasions then, when it really doesn't count, along the way...

Malarkey, the same way Montreal sucked in seasons when they won their division with 100+ points, off of strong starts under the coaching brilliance (sarcasm, if you didn't get it) of Michel Therrien, only to fall apart when the play got tighter and tougher in the playoffs.

It's not just the Leafs. Other teams have been built as pretty regular season teams that, despite promise and some spectacular players when the coverage isn't as tight, don't even have any A-Game to bring come playoff time.

Just look at things honestly, please and don't try to make a crock pot out of BS as ingredients.

What's listed above are the facts. The rest is just fantasy.

It's insulting to my (immature, I think that's what it's been called) intelligence.

Sure, but I don’t think that they have been a poorly constructed team in last 5 seasons. They’ve been a top regular season team for half a decade that hasn’t had good luck in the first round. Sometimes that’s just what happens in the playoffs.

 

[ReHabs]

I think the Leafs have been as well built as can be expected from their management. After a certain point it’s just bad luck to have multiple players who choke.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Sorry if I misunderstood your position, but still don't understand it, I believe.

All the posts are in this thread, but the gist of it is that Hughes isn't gunning to contend in a few years, he's going to be deliberate and look for opportunities (which may look like a Dach scenario where he trades from strength to address a weakness with the long term in view). He is probably not going to aggressive in trying to contend in a few years and burn his draft capital to do so.

 

[sampollock]

Sure, but I don’t think that they have been a poorly constructed team in last 5 seasons. They’ve been a top regular season team for half a decade that hasn’t had good luck in the first round. Sometimes that’s just what happens in the playoffs.

no, the figs lost cause they have no heart. no excuses already for them

I think the Leafs have been as well built as can be expected from their management. After a certain point it’s just bad luck to have multiple players who choke.

luck has nothing to do with... they suck

besides that , this is not a fig thread

I think the Leafs have been as well built as can be expected from their management. After a certain point it’s just bad luck to have multiple players who choke.

luck has nothing to do with... they suck

besides that , this is not a fig thread

 

[Andrewcoursol]

I think the Leafs have been as well built as can be expected from their management. After a certain point it’s just bad luck to have multiple players who choke.

the leafs at playoff time are like politicians, no results and a lot of excuses for not getting the job done, this continued lack of playoff progress are pure joy to habs fans, as well as a therapists dream treating leafsnation members, including employees at leafsnet.

 

[26Mats]

The only prospects I don't trade are Hutson, Farrell, Mailloux.

Everyone else is expendable in order to get better.

Beck, Roy, Kidney, Heineman, Struble, Harris etc, I include in trade packages for whomever can improve our team.

If Harris is on that list, are Guhle, Barron, and Xhekaj also on it?

 

[Destopcorner]

Wait, that sounds personal, so it must be. I just don't understand what you're trying to get at. Explain, please, so I can respond appropriately...


I can definitely agree with Pezzetta as a 13th forward.

Pezz is having a great offensive year while being the same hitting machine. He is top 5 in many category for 4th liners and people keep on underestimating his play. Very good speed and he made some sick pass and goals showing great hand eye coordination. Add the fact he will defend anyone on the team, pretty sure he won't pass waivers next year.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

They;ve been a top team for several years and outside the habs have played other top teams in the first round.

Bad matchups (which happen) have been a bigger issue than roster issues.

Matchups are a factor in winning championships. But not for continously losing playoff series. Leafs have never had a good goaltender or adequately filled out the forward position.

 

[calder candidate]

Matchups are a factor in winning championships. But not for continously losing playoff series. Leafs have never had a good goaltender or adequately filled out the forward position.

There biggest issue has been D and they never really address it…

 

[Scriptor]

Pezz is having a great offensive year while being the same hitting machine. He is top 5 in many category for 4th liners and people keep on underestimating his play. Very good speed and he made some sick pass and goals showing great hand eye coordination. Add the fact he will defend anyone on the team, pretty sure he won't pass waivers next year.

Happy if he gets a chance elsewhere.

I don't hate PEZZETTA. I just think that,. when the time comes that the Habs are a contender, we can do better.