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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,897
4,875
Him saying they won’t make moves to be much better next year, says a lot. However someone take this information. He knows it will take time.

No they won’t push for the playoffs next year, it’s just common sense.

Again, you yourself can assume what Hughes want but of course no one else can share their own opinion on the habs situation.

a trade like the Dach trade don’t accelerate the process much, it’s still a move in a 3-4 years window because the player is already in the league or ready to be but will need development years to reach their potential. I am not against those kind of moves at all, i said it multiple times.
"Him saying they won’t make moves to be much better next year, says a lot. However someone take this information. He knows it will take time."

I'd also like to add the nuance to this statement to better represent what Hughes actually said.

"Him saying they won’t make moves to be much better (for just) next year, says a lot. However someone take this information. He knows it will take time."

It never meant he wouldn't make moves to be better next year and for the long term at the same time.

Your interpretation of what Hughes said passes off as someone listening to a weather forecast that follows and coming out with the interpretation fixated on it raining tomorrow and nothing else:

Tomorrow, rain expected, early in the morning, but, by mid-morning, the sun should make its apparition and sunny periods will stretch throughout the day and the rest of the week.

For you, they said it would rain and that's it.
 

SlafySZN

Registered User
May 21, 2022
7,462
16,134
I agree that the 2023 1st likely won't play with Montreal next season. Hell, I don't think it will happen, but Slafkovsky could possibly also start the season in Laval.

However, the team will be better if healthy, better than 6th OA. Matheson not getting injured would change a lot, IMO. For the rest, with the youngsters, added experience should see them progress next season. The addition of Heineman will also help.

Just having two top-6 lines next year, with a healthy lineup would bolster our performances, IMO.

Caufield - Suzuki - Heineman
RHP - Dach - Anderson

with no additions from outside the team and its system would definitely bring more offensive production.

Habs will not make the playoffs again, but won't finish worst five.

The G situation, as for this year, will be a question mark, however.
We never know. The team will get younger and with younger players it brings unexperience.

They will have more younger talent, but it doesn’t mean it makes your team is much better on the short term.
 

SlafySZN

Registered User
May 21, 2022
7,462
16,134
"Him saying they won’t make moves to be much better next year, says a lot. However someone take this information. He knows it will take time."

I'd also like to add the nuance to this statement to better represent what Hughes actually said.

"Him saying they won’t make moves to be much better (for just) next year, says a lot. However someone take this information. He knows it will take time."

It never meant he wouldn't make moves to be better next year and for the long term at the same time.

Your interpretation of what Hughes said passes off as someone listening to a weather forecast that follows and coming out with the interpretation fixated on it raining tomorrow and nothing else:

Tomorrow, rain expected, early in the morning, but, by mid-morning, the sun should make its apparition and sunny periods will stretch throughout the day and the rest of the week.

For you, they said it would rain and that's it.
You said it; long term

Bringing in young talent doesn’t mean they’ll automatically be a better team next year. Young players are unexperienced.

But if you want to believe they’ll suddenly be good next year/near playoffs spot and that Hughes will make impactful moves to help them compete next year then good for you i guess. We won’t see eye to eye on this subject.
 
Last edited:

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,897
4,875
We never know. The team will get younger and with younger players it brings unexperience.

They will have more younger talent, but it doesn’t mean it makes your team is much better on the short term.
I'll agree we can't predict the future, but it goes both ways. also what makes watching future games more interesting, if not less lucrative from not being able to bet on the games with forehand knowledge. :)

You said it; long term

Bringing in young talent doesn’t mean they’ll automatically be a better team next year. Young players are unexperienced.

But if you want to believe they’ll suddenly be good next year/near playoffs spot and that Hughes will make impactful moves to help them compete next year then good for you i guess. We won’t see eye to eye on this subject.
Dubois is young. He wouldn't tip the balance into making the Habs a playoff team next year -- that is not the point of acquiring him (as I've maintained over and over again) -- but he surely would help a young team, while remaining young, be better.
 

SlafySZN

Registered User
May 21, 2022
7,462
16,134
I'll agree we can't predict the future, but it goes both ways. also what makes watching future games more interesting, if not less lucrative from not being able to bet on the games with forehand knowledge. :)
If the young guys we have take a big step then good for them, it’s good for the organization. But i just think there’s still years of growing pains while adding young talent.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,897
4,875
We never know. The team will get younger and with younger players it brings unexperience.

They will have more younger talent, but it doesn’t mean it makes your team is much better on the short term.
You said it; long term

Bringing in young talent doesn’t mean they’ll automatically be a better team next year. Young players are unexperienced.

But if you want to believe they’ll suddenly be good next year/near playoffs spot and that Hughes will make impactful moves to help them compete next year then good for you i guess. We won’t see eye to eye on this subject.
"Young players are unexperienced."

Not if they have already played six years in the NHL by age 24 and have already shown they can have an impact in the NHL.

But, of course, you wouldn't take a young player back in a trade if they were experienced and already had an impact in the NHL?

I donM't understand the logic when it comes to rebuilding a team and trying to build a better young core over time?

Your arguments apply to adding 30-yr old vets in the hopes of eking into the playoffs and remaining a Middle-of-the-road team, not to supplementing a young core with young, talented players who aren't only unproven quantities or projects.

If the young guys we have take a big step then good for them, it’s good for the organization. But i just think there’s still years of growing pains while adding young talent.
I agree.
 

SlafySZN

Registered User
May 21, 2022
7,462
16,134
"Young players are unexperienced."

Not if they have already played six years in the NHL by age 24 and have already shown they can have an impact in the NHL.

But, of course, you wouldn't take a young player back in a trade if they were experienced and already had an impact in the NHL?

I donM't understand the logic when it comes to rebuilding a team and trying to build a better young core over time?

Your arguments apply to adding 30-yr old vets in the hopes of eking into the playoffs and remaining a Middle-of-the-road team, not to supplementing a young core with young, talented players who aren't only unproven quantities or projects.


I agree.
We mostly agree just not on specific things. I just don’t think they want to commit long term/big money on a player outside the organization right now. In my opinion they have many things to clean up before thinking about this and be a real competitive team.

They might want him and you’re right. Who knows.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,897
4,875
We mostly agree just not on specific things. I just don’t think they want to commit long term/big money on a player outside the organization right now. In my opinion they have many things to clean up before thinking about this and be a real competitive team.

They might want him and you’re right. Who knows.
I don't know either, of course.

Dubois might not even be in HuGo's plans? Of course, my position is, irrelevant of the fact his name is Dubois, I don't understand why they wouldn't be; right demographics (age before anything, not location, but location, while it should not be the sole motivation, is a bonus that can't be ignored -- ignoring it would be dishonest), opportunity for a value deal because of his refusal to commit in WIN and his willingness to sign with the Habs (a rarity for that quality player at that age), a good complement for the long term development of the young, talented players already in the top-6, etc.

I'm less concerned with the long term because Dubois is a dual threat, big-bodied C that scores and sets up plays. He can easily be transferred to the wing should Dach and Suzuki provide better options at C, or should, via the draft, we acquire a superior C.

Once everyone is fully developed, the tale will be told and the depth at C will be easily established. With Suzuki, Dubois and Dach all viable candidates to produce on the wing as well, I'm not remotely concerned about how it will shake out in the next there or four years.

Hopefully, what we have, at that point, should leave us with a four-year window to compete for the Cup. Beyond that, it's up to HuGo, if they are still around, to continue drafting wisely and developing their prospects to keep the wheel of success turning.

What I'm more concerned with is, like everyone, the Cap hit. Since I don't believe we will end up landing a generational player worth 20% of the payroll, or even 15% of the payroll with his 12.5M Cap hit on a 81.5M Cap ceiling, I'm pretty much on board with what seems to be going down in Hab Land under Hughes.

It definitely looks like they are attempting to use Suzuki's Cap hit as an internal, individual Cap ceiling figure. Caufield's new contract will further expose that, IMO, and a contract for Dubois should not really extend beyond that internal cap ceiling, to remain credible.

Having three top-6 contributors in the same range will;l only keep downward pressure on upcoming talent in the system as the negotiate their second contracts.

It's a smart business model employed by TB with their 9.5M internal Cap, as it was when Crosby, in PIT, had agreed to match his sweater's number (8.7M) as a long term salary figure. If I'm correct, it had put unspoken pressure on Malkin to match that salary on his 2nd NHL contract.

I expect the Cap to rise near 94M over the next three, four or five years, as projected, I consider that the dead wood will rot on its own in a timely fashion to provide Cap space as needed, if it isn't moved beforehand, and I consider that the internal cap ceiling established, if done so successfully, will provide value contracts to move out for sizeable gains in future assets as the players become older veterans and we see younger talents developing into comparable replacements.

IMHO, there. is a lot less crises in the works, Cap-wise, if we acquire Dubois long term around Suzuki money.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,982
18,162
"Young players are unexperienced."

Not if they have already played six years in the NHL by age 24 and have already shown they can have an impact in the NHL.

But, of course, you wouldn't take a young player back in a trade if they were experienced and already had an impact in the NHL?

I donM't understand the logic when it comes to rebuilding a team and trying to build a better young core over time?

Your arguments apply to adding 30-yr old vets in the hopes of eking into the playoffs and remaining a Middle-of-the-road team, not to supplementing a young core with young, talented players who aren't only unproven quantities or projects.


I agree.
The thing with Dubois is he isn’t young anymore. Not saying he’s old of course but he’s entered his prime. What you’re seeing now is more than likely what you can expect the duration of his contract unless he declines. And unlike with a younger player, this player requires a big commitment straight away. Up to 9 years if they were to acquire him by next season. That makes things more complicated for Hughes as he has to be sure this is a player worth committing to that long at a high salary.
 

Miller Time

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
24,191
17,040
To Wash
Hoffman, Trudeau

To Mtl
Mantha, '24 3rd

Could see something like this work for both sides.

Caps get cap space while downgrading middle-6 winger spot slightly. Add a prospect that showed very well in first pro season & could push for NHL depth spot over next 2-3 seasons.

Habs add a minor upgrade at wing that is young enough to be a bit of a reclamation project with a ceiling that checks a lot of boxes... or that can be flipped at the deadline if he's not a fit. Swap a good prospect in an area ofajor org depth for future draft collateral.

Mantha next to Suzuki & CC could be a really nice fit, he's got the skill & skating to complement them... & if he has a solid year, could see him be keen on a team friendly extension giving up some market premium for the benefit of being a part of what the Habs are building & sticking in a positive situation after a few years of struggles.

Worth kicking tires for sure
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scriptor

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,897
4,875
The thing with Dubois is he isn’t young anymore. Not saying he’s old of course but he’s entered his prime. What you’re seeing now is more than likely what you can expect the duration of his contract unless he declines. And unlike with a younger player, this player requires a big commitment straight away. Up to 9 years if they were to acquire him by next season. That makes things more complicated for Hughes as he has to be sure this is a player worth committing to that long at a high salary.
Well, since he really isn't very old at all -- and we'll disagree that his established floor is also to be considered his ceiling, with, basically, only regression to project down the line -- 9 years of Dubois would represent him being 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

Very conservatively speaking, we'd have signed him for 6 prime years out of 9. I think he has upside (you don't), so I expect the small decline as a 31, 32, and 33 year old to be a reversion to the means (25 goals, 60 points).

By years 7, 8 and 9, Dubois, at worst, would be a very valuable trade chip if he became extraneous on our roster, with more talented youngsters moving up through the ranks?

The contract for Dubois, with the rising Cap would also become relatively easier to move by years 7, 8 and 9 of that contract for a team looking at a missing piece for a long layoff run.

Plus, in the final year of his contract, just how precious would Dubois be, if he is producing 25 goals and 60 points, with a price tag of 4M (50% of an 8M contract held back to make the trade)?

For a deal to happen, you are definitely right -- Hughes can't be remotely hesitant about wanting to acquire Dubois. He must feel certain about the player and the trade, for sure.

For any of those types of moves, whether it be for Dubois, a player named McKinley, or another named Smorgasbord (it's not important), I wouldn't want to be in Hughes' shoes, because they represent defining moves for his tenure as GM.

For one, it, amongst many things, mustn't amount to being nothing more than a lateral move, with no follow through via the acquisition of further quality assets (through the draft, trades and UFA market) over the coming years, in support of the roster.
 

nhlfan9191

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
19,982
18,162
Well, since he really isn't very old at all -- and we'll disagree that his established floor is also to be considered his ceiling, with, basically, only regression to project down the line -- 9 years of Dubois would represent him being 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

Very conservatively speaking, we'd have signed him for 6 prime years out of 9. I think he has upside (you don't), so I expect the small decline as a 31, 32, and 33 year old to be a reversion to the means (25 goals, 60 points).

By years 7, 8 and 9, Dubois, at worst, would be a very valuable trade chip if he became extraneous on our roster, with more talented youngsters moving up through the ranks?

The contract for Dubois, with the rising Cap would also become relatively easier to move by years 7, 8 and 9 of that contract for a team looking at a missing piece for a long layoff run.

Plus, in the final year of his contract, just how precious would Dubois be, if he is producing 25 goals and 60 points, with a price tag of 4M (50% of an 8M contract held back to make the trade)?

For a deal to happen, you are definitely right -- Hughes can't be remotely hesitant about wanting to acquire Dubois. He must feel certain about the player and the trade, for sure.

For any of those types of moves, whether it be for Dubois, a player named McKinley, or another named Smorgasbord (it's not important), I wouldn't want to be in Hughes' shoes, because they represent defining moves for his tenure as GM.

For one, it, amongst many things, mustn't amount to being nothing more than a lateral move, with no follow through via the acquisition of further quality assets (through the draft, trades and UFA market) over the coming years, in support of the roster.
I hate committing to forwards who are past 30. Their play after that is so unpredictable from a production stand point. Obviously in a situation like this where you’re getting so many prime years, it’s not that big of a deal but I think you’re being optimistic on how the final 3-4 years of that contract will look. If we were in a position to really take advantage of his prime years, I’d be all over this but we aren’t. And I can guarantee all of that will be calculated when Hughes looks into this further.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,897
4,875
I hate committing to forwards who are past 30. Their play after that is so unpredictable from a production stand point. Obviously in a situation like this where you’re getting so many prime years, it’s not that big of a deal but I think you’re being optimistic on how the final 3-4 years of that contract will look. If we were in a position to really take advantage of his prime years, I’d be all over this but we aren’t. And I can guarantee all of that will be calculated when Hughes looks into this further.
Again, who knows, for sure, but options are always better than no options...
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
21,240
9,578
Swayman’s stats are inflated playing on a defensive powerhouse. The same powerhouse that made a sieve like Ullmark a Vezina favourite. He’d get starched playing on a team like ours.
So Montembeault is a stud? Or at least a real number one since with the 30th best SVP, and our poor defence, he is well into the top 30 (i.e. a number one)?
 

The Great Weal

Phil's Pizza
Jan 15, 2015
54,877
70,297
I would gamble on Mantha for a mid round pick and Pitlick, he's got a year left in case it doesn't work out.

PLD-Suzuki-CC
Mantha-Dach-Anderson
RHP-Dvorak-Ylonen
Hoffman/Armia-Evans-Gallagher
Pezz

Then the AHL will look great with:

Slaf-Richard-Farell
Heineman-X-Roy

That being said, not sure why the Caps just wouldn't keep him themselves, hope he bounces back and if not trade him at 50% retained at the deadline. Their window is done.
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
21,240
9,578
How did you get “Montembault is a stud” out of what I said? In fact how did you get any of this?
Your words have consequences. They're not just a cheap trick to counter an argument you do not like.

If you tell me that Swayman's .921 SVP (4th in the league) is not good enough for 1G status on the Habs because Boston's defence is what makes him look better than his real worth which is backup, then Montembeault, who is 25th in the league with his .906 SVP should probably rate better due to our horrendous defence, and even 25th is 1G level.

If Slayman's SVP should be rated down by 20 points to get him into backup level value, the Monty's should go up ...what? 20 points? 15 points? Tell you what, how about just 8 points. A SVP of .914 would put Montembeault 14th, or average starting goalie level.
 

Runner77

**********************************************
Sponsor
Jun 24, 2012
85,115
155,631
Why this again?

Dans Les Coulisses is not even a serious enough sports web site to quote. It's a click bait site that will continually raise these links to local players to earn revenue through traffic on the site.
They’re a makeshift demagoguery, language zealot, ethnophobe site posing as a general sports-themed outlet.

Every week, they feature a BS incendiary language-based article, if not more than one. Since they traffic in that kind of garbage, they can’t be taken seriously. If they want to be a political site so badly, then quit the pandering and come out and be one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scriptor

Lockin17

Registered User
Jul 31, 2018
3,782
2,935
Clifton in Boston is UFA this summer.

I would sign that guy in a minute.
Maybe trade Kovasevic for the right to him and sign Clifton for a 5 years deal, 3.5 mil a year.
 

HuGort

Registered User
Jun 15, 2012
21,501
10,535
Nova Scotia
To Wash
Hoffman, Trudeau

To Mtl
Mantha, '24 3rd

Could see something like this work for both sides.

Caps get cap space while downgrading middle-6 winger spot slightly. Add a prospect that showed very well in first pro season & could push for NHL depth spot over next 2-3 seasons.

Habs add a minor upgrade at wing that is young enough to be a bit of a reclamation project with a ceiling that checks a lot of boxes... or that can be flipped at the deadline if he's not a fit. Swap a good prospect in an area ofajor org depth for future draft collateral.

Mantha next to Suzuki & CC could be a really nice fit, he's got the skill & skating to complement them... & if he has a solid year, could see him be keen on a team friendly extension giving up some market premium for the benefit of being a part of what the Habs are building & sticking in a positive situation after a few years of struggles.

Worth kicking tires for sure
Could work. I remember 2or 3 years ago every poster on this board was in love with Mantha. Imagine there were reasons. Mantha has scored 25 goals before has size. Marty maybe able to bring it back out of him.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,897
4,875
Could work. I remember 2or 3 years ago every poster on this board was in love with Mantha. Imagine there were reasons. Mantha has scored 25 goals before has size. Marty maybe able to bring it back out of him.
What's the knock on Mantha? Is this Gurianov 2.0, or something else is nt working?
 

BaseballCoach

Registered User
Dec 15, 2006
21,240
9,578
I would gamble on Mantha for a mid round pick and Pitlick, he's got a year left in case it doesn't work out.

PLD-Suzuki-CC
Mantha-Dach-Anderson
RHP-Dvorak-Ylonen
Hoffman/Armia-Evans-Gallagher
Pezz

Then the AHL will look great with:

Slaf-Richard-Farell
Heineman-X-Roy

That being said, not sure why the Caps just wouldn't keep him themselves, hope he bounces back and if not trade him at 50% retained at the deadline. Their window is done.
Don't get the Mantha fit. He'll be 29 when the season starts. Besides, Washington is unlikely to let Mantha go that cheaply. Might as well keep Gurianov who is three years younger. and much, much cheaper. If it's important to you, I could ask him to change his name to Youri Anneau.

I believe that the choices with Heineman are Habs or SHL.

Not sure Anthony Richard wants to re-sign with us.

Kidney is probably in Laval too.

What are we giving up to acquire PLD?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sterling Archer
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad