MasterD
Giggidy Giggidy Goo
- Jul 1, 2004
- 6,076
- 5,641
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #85 - Offseason Editon
- Thread starter Lafleurs Guy
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Ah, the usual condescending cryptic sheet.
A normal human being would simply say, "Evans for Boqvist is not going to fly for these X reasons, leading to this Y team refusing".
But not you. While I've had some people tell me it should be nixed by CBJ and others say MTL should nix it, I have no idea which team you think it is no good for. Not even after you dragged Slaf and Peake into the discussion, further muddying the waters.
Interesting take; trading Dvorak as a stop-gap option to a rebuilding team with ample cap space and substantial draft capital could indeed be a creative way to avoid salary retention.
And since the acquiring team could likely fetch more than it paid for Dvorak at TDL 2025 - if only because of salary retention and the expiring term - it’s not out of the realm of possibilities that such a team could be willing to pay a 2nd round pick+ in such context.
HuGort
Registered User
Too early yet for Habs to be making any trades. Wait until about 20 game mark. See how things fall out
RealityBytes
Trash Remover
- Feb 11, 2013
- 3,030
- 472
I should have been more clear in my answer. He wouldn't because no other team would keep him or play him and he would be dumped from NHL hockey entirely. Gone and forgotten ... same as Joffrey Lupul was dumped.
Kobe Armstrong
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2011
- 16,551
- 7,776
We probably get Laf. If Hughes is allowed to keep trading for his clients, it's only fair Gorton is allowed to keep trading for his busts
Chicago is trash. We better win on Saturday. If Montembault doesn't allow too many Montembaults.
I agree.
MTL would have to take Myers too, at least.
As a VAN fan, why do you think they want to get rid of Garland?
I read that they are willing to retain on his contract to make it happen.
Is he that bad?
I don t think they would touch Gallagher even with Myers because the key challenge is Pettersson s next contract next year. Myers is off the book at the end of the season, so he is not really a problem. Myers is similar to Armia : really like when he is on but he is off most nights
Garland is a 2nd / 3rd line player. He produced close to 50 points last year, 50 the year before so on average he is not overpaid : he is in line with the rule of thumb 1M for 10 points scored. The only issue I have seen with Garland is that he is small so he loses board battles and struggles against big Dmen in front of the net. However he is a fighter On the ice, has a bulldog mentality and is not a defensive liability.
The fact they want to move him has more to do with not being able to move on from Boeser than anything else. They just think he is behind Boeser Kuzmenko Mikheyev on the depth chart, and similar to Beauvillier but with higher AAV and shorter term. I am not sure management will trade him at all cost. (Or rather I hope not but VAN management is quite bad) The logical thing would be to let him play his season. Look at how much cap space they need for next year and then trade one of him or Boeser (who will only have one year left) if need be.
I see.I don t think they would touch Gallagher even with Myers because the key challenge is Pettersson s next contract next year. Myers is off the book at the end of the season, so he is not really a problem. Myers is similar to Armia : really like when he is on but he is off most nights
Garland is a 2nd / 3rd line player. He produced close to 50 points last year, 50 the year before so on average he is not overpaid : he is in line with the rule of thumb 1M for 10 points scored. The only issue I have seen with Garland is that he is small so he loses board battles and struggles against big Dmen in front of the net. However he is a fighter On the ice, has a bulldog mentality and is not a defensive liability.
The fact they want to move him has more to do with not being able to move on from Boeser than anything else. They just think he is behind Boeser Kuzmenko Mikheyev on the depth chart, and similar to Beauvillier but with higher AAV and shorter term. I am not sure management will trade him at all cost. (Or rather I hope not but VAN management is quite bad) The logical thing would be to let him play his season. Look at how much cap space they need for next year and then trade one of him or Boeser (who will only have one year left) if need be.
But with Myers and Beauvillier off the books next year combined with the cap going up by 4M+, that's like 14M+ of cap space for next year (12M if you replace those players with 1M players). That should be more than plenty for Pettersson's pay raise, no?
Since they have 0 cap space left and they have to win this year to convince Pettersson to stay, i figured they needed cap space now more than next year.
The Gr8 Dane
L'harceleur
Nobody is touching gallagher stop twisting yourselves in a pretzel , we move on lol
There is some truth to that but I think management realizes they have no trade chips to improve this roster even once they have created cap space : they have a quasi non existent prospect pool (since 2016, they have wasted a 5OA, a 10OA, except if Podkolzin somehow figures things out this year, they traded 2 1st rounders including a 9OA for OEL whom they have bought out since…) and won t risk Lekkerimaki Willander if they have no certainty about Pettersson
Thanks for the info.
They're a bit hard to follow.
I thought they wanted to win now.
Maybe they're trying to do a reset on the fly, Bergevin style...lol
They want to win now : they have a 1C (Petterson) a 2C who could also be a 1LW (Miller), a 1RW (Kuzmenko), four top 6/9 wingers (Mikheyev, Beauvillier, Boeser, Garland), a top 9 center (Blueger or Suter) a 1LD (Hughes) 2 top 4 Dmen (Hronek, Soucy) a top goalie (Demko) The issue with them is depth (injury + lack of scoring) and coaching. Let s see if it works with Tocchet but on paper they have a good team and play in the weaker conference.
How many such trades did Hughes make? Is it two?
Over a year ago, Hughes traded Petry for Matheson, a master stroke.
This past summer, he traded a 31st and 37th for a former 16th who has more than earned his ranking (Newhook). Normally the calculation is that a 16th is worth more than a 31st plus 37th. So another very rational, plausible deal.
Were there any other former clients traded for?
Can't blame us for holding out even a flicker of hope...
Kobe Armstrong
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2011
- 16,551
- 7,776
Lafreniere is the perfect double whammy, a former Hughes client AND a Gorton bust... they won't be able to keep their hands off
Matheson + Newhook as players, Lecavalier in the front office for Hughes' clients
Lias Andersson for Gorton busts
Jaynki
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2014
- 5,871
- 6,054
Hughes trading for Matheson and hiring St. Louis and Lecavalier have certainly been bad for our franchise.
I mean, as an agent, he scout player and ink deals with them because if he finds a good player he will make a boatload of money representing him.
I think you want to imply cronyism but what is wrong with working and hiring(trading for) people you believe in?
I mean, would have been a different story if we signed his son to an 80M deal but thats not the case here. Or if we would have hired Lefebvre and Larry Carriere son
Lafreniere was represented by Emilie Castonguay.
Stop spreading disinformation
Lafreniere is with Momentum Sports, Olivier Fortier lead agent. Emilie Castonguay was with that firm and took care of him until she left to go to the NHL.
Hughes was with Quartexx, a different firm.
Lias Andersson was a UFA pickup for Laval. Cost no assets.
I have no idea what your issue is, but you are clearly exaggerating and definitely reaching when you are complaining about the trade for Matheson especially.
So Kent Hughes has more information than many others about a bunch of players that he or his firm represented.
Out of all these players he knows MORE than others, he has traded for TWO.
It makes sense actually. Knowing more probably increases his chances of being right, and certainly Matheson turned out well. Many pundits think Newhook will too.
At the same time, knowing more might be the reason why he did NOT trade for certain others. It's not like he traded all of our assets to get 10 former clients and most of them failed.
Cheese is Price, can't believe this is a conversation topic.
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 30,734
- 22,449
I think some of the criticism directed at management is rooted in the fact that people are getting antsy about the state of the club as there are still a number of holes to fill.
The question is, do people really think 2 seasons (2 drafts) is a reasonable timeframe to expect significant improvements?
I truly believe people are really being impatient. This is what rebuilds look like. Overnight success just doesn't happen unless you had core pieces in hiding that suddenly hit their primes, but this is not the case here.
In terms of nhl ready talent, current management was left with a pretty barren field. There are good prospects they inherited, but there is still a ways to go.
The question is, do people really think 2 seasons (2 drafts) is a reasonable timeframe to expect significant improvements?
I truly believe people are really being impatient. This is what rebuilds look like. Overnight success just doesn't happen unless you had core pieces in hiding that suddenly hit their primes, but this is not the case here.
In terms of nhl ready talent, current management was left with a pretty barren field. There are good prospects they inherited, but there is still a ways to go.
- Status
