HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #87: 2024 Season Finale

[CanadienShark]

Doesn't make you look any better

Go back and reread. I acknowledged the trade post was at the absolute high end and this is about getting the 10th pick/Zegras in the very first reply to you . You got stuck in a pot hole (Markstrom) while driving and forgot where you were driving now.

Now you are too chicken to rephrase the trade breakdown in you own evaluations. Wow.. great character... Just here to bark about bad proposals.

No, the hangup was Markstrom doesn't get two 1sts+ OR 10th overall. None of the proposal was reasonable.

Too chicken? No. It's not my job to make proposals. I'll respond to what I choose to.

 

[waitin425]

I saw something like Anderson + Xhekaj + 26th for 10th and immediately dismissed it. DO NOT WANT TO LOSE XHEKAJ.

Then I slept on it.

What if.....at 5th, we select Sam Dickinson.

Then.....pull the trigger at 10th to land one of......

Iginla, Sennecke, Catton (one of them has to be there)

I mean.....Xhekaj looks like a good D Partner for Mailloux. But trust me......Dickinson looks like a better D partner.

We lose Power Donkey, but put Iggy, Sennecke or Catton into the pipeline. Is there a trade to be made for Wifi.....depending on who is available at 5, and then 10?

 

[Kents polished head]

I saw something like Anderson + Xhekaj + 26th for 10th and immediately dismissed it. DO NOT WANT TO LOSE XHEKAJ.

Then I slept on it.

What if.....at 5th, we select Sam Dickinson.

Then.....pull the trigger at 10th to land one of......

Iginla, Sennecke, Catton (one of them has to be there)

I mean.....Xhekaj looks like a good D Partner for Mailloux. But trust me......Dickinson looks like a better D partner.

We lose Power Donkey, but put Iggy, Sennecke or Catton into the pipeline. Is there a trade to be made for Wifi.....depending on who is available at 5, and then 10?

There's no world in which Dickinson actually busts as a prospect as far as I'm concerned. Very impressive young man. So that's a "pensez-y bien".

 

[BergevinBurner]

Anyone think there's a chance we trade Guhle+ for an established top 6 forward and then draft one of Dickinson/Buium?

I'm not sure which player I'd want back in a trade like that, but it wouldn't be Necas or Zegras.

 

[Andy]

Not to be a debbie downer, but the odds of selecting two great players in the top 10 in the same draft year (at 5 and 10) is certainly higher than the rest of the draft, but it is still not that high.

Go look at 5th and 10th selection the last 10 years. It's still a high risk to pay current talent for potential talent.

I'm not inclined to trade for the 10th overall unless the 5th is being used to bring in top level talent ready to produce now.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Anyone think there's a chance we trade Guhle+ for an established top 6 forward and then draft one of Dickinson/Buium?

I'm not sure which player I'd want back in a trade like that, but it wouldn't be Necas or Zegras.

I would put 1% odds at that. Guhle is our only young established D. If we are going to trade a D who projects high for a forward, it's probably one of Hutson, Reinbacher, Mailloux.

Not much talk about this but what kind of value does Hutson/Jets 1st have? Many fans will come and try to block this right away but that's something I would do with Guhle in terms of putting full stop too. Huge Hutson fan but he will need sheltering. He's going to turn the regular season needle but not sure about playoffs or final 4 standards.

 

[Deus ex machina]

No, not missing the point. I already acknowledged that. Are you scared to post your own trade valuations using the same type of strategy or are you going to go on and on and on about Markstrom only?

I'll play!

I think that you're giving up too much.
I also think that a 2nd and a B prospect won't do it. There are more than one team interested in Markstrom and that will drive the price up a little.

If you retain 50% on Markstrom, that's worth a 29 pick OA according to PuckPedia's calculator.
So the difference in value between 10 OA and 29 is 17 OA, again according to PuckPedia.

So to make it a fair trade with NJ, you have to get Markstrom for around 17 OA value.
I think that's acceptable value for him at full salary considering the demand around the league, even if he's a bit old.

The average value for Calgary's 2025 1st happens to be 18 OA, considering that it can turn out to be a high as 11 OA and as low as 32.
That part is debatable but i'm sure that Calgary would like to have their pick back and not have that hang over their heads for the duration of next season.

The Habs could add a guy like Harris, who the Flames were rumored to be interested in, for a 2nd.

So my proposal would be:

To Calgary:
Their own 2025 1st
Jordan Harris

To NJ:
Markstrom (50% retained by MTL)

To MTL:
2024 10th OA
2nd from Calgary

It can be tweaked a little, but i think it's in the ballpark.
Also i'm not sure that Markstrom has to be retained on. Retention can be substituted with 26 OA to NJ.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

I'll play!

I think that you're giving up too much.
I also think that a 2nd and a B prospect won't do it. There are more than one team interested in Markstrom and that will drive the price up a little.

If you retain 50% on Markstrom, that's worth a 29 pick OA according to PuckPedia's calculator.
So the difference in value between 10 OA and 29 is 17 OA, again according to PuckPedia.

So to make it a fair trade with NJ, you have to get Markstrom for around 17 OA value.
I think that's acceptable value for him at full salary considering the demand around the league, even if he's a bit old.

The average value for Calgary's 2025 1st happens to be 18 OA, considering that it can turn out to be a high as 11 OA and as low as 32.
That part is debatable but i'm sure that Calgary would like to have their pick back and not have that hang over their heads for the duration of next season.

The Habs could add a guy like Harris, who the Flames were rumored to be interested in, for a 2nd.

So my proposal would be:

To Calgary:
Their own 2025 1st
Jordan Harris

To NJ:
Markstrom (50% retained by MTL)

To MTL:
2024 10th OA
2nd from Calgary

It can be tweaked a little, but i think it's in the ballpark.
Also i'm not sure that Markstrom has to be retained on. Retention can be substituted with 26 OA to NJ.

So, the 1st in 2025 is conditional and almost certainly going to be Florida's, so not theor own.

Secondly, Calgary could just retain 50% and ret the 10th overall and a 2nd back because their team sucks and they're not going anywhere, so saving salary isn't an issue.

 

[The Great Weal]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1798414116509642814

This was obvious. Carolina isn't going to be tripping over themselves to accept Barron+Harris+WIN 1st.

 

[The Great Weal]

If Demidov is off the board & Lindstrom has some concerns, would you all be open to trade down our 5th OV to CGY’s 9th OV & get their other first next year (securing us to get both their 1sts)?

Yes but I just don't think the Habs would do that. They will probably like a forward more than the others and just take him at 5th OA even if most of us believe the forwards after the top 3 are in a similar tier.

 

[Mikah]

I saw something like Anderson + Xhekaj + 26th for 10th and immediately dismissed it. DO NOT WANT TO LOSE XHEKAJ.

I think Montreal would probably have to give the 26th pick and retain 50% as an incentive to dump Anderson to another team.

So basically, you are suggesting Xhekaj for a 10th. I doubt that's happening.

 

[Deus ex machina]

So, the 1st in 2025 is conditional and almost certainly going to be Florida's, so not theor own.

If Calgary's pick is not in the top 10, the Habs get the better of the 2 picks, so it's possible that the pick end up being 11 OA.
You can say that Calgary will pick in the top 10, but you can't know for sure.

Secondly, Calgary could just retain 50% and ret the 10th overall and a 2nd back because their team sucks and they're not going anywhere, so saving salary isn't an issue.

The story is that Calgary and NJ had a deal in place for Markstrom before TDL and that Calgary ownership nixed the deal because they didn't want to pay for a player that's not playing on their team.
I doubt they changed the mind since then.

 

[Laurentide]

Anyone think there's a chance we trade Guhle+ for an established top 6 forward and then draft one of Dickinson/Buium?

I'm not sure which player I'd want back in a trade like that, but it wouldn't be Necas or Zegras.

My only concern with Guhle is his durability. He seems to get injured a lot for such a young player. Otherwise I'd never think of trading him. But it may turn out that he becomes another Gord Kluzak; a highly skilled defensemen who spends as much time on IR as he does on the ice.

I'll play!

I think that you're giving up too much.
I also think that a 2nd and a B prospect won't do it. There are more than one team interested in Markstrom and that will drive the price up a little.

If you retain 50% on Markstrom, that's worth a 29 pick OA according to PuckPedia's calculator.
So the difference in value between 10 OA and 29 is 17 OA, again according to PuckPedia.

So to make it a fair trade with NJ, you have to get Markstrom for around 17 OA value.
I think that's acceptable value for him at full salary considering the demand around the league, even if he's a bit old.

The average value for Calgary's 2025 1st happens to be 18 OA, considering that it can turn out to be a high as 11 OA and as low as 32.
That part is debatable but i'm sure that Calgary would like to have their pick back and not have that hang over their heads for the duration of next season.

The Habs could add a guy like Harris, who the Flames were rumored to be interested in, for a 2nd.

So my proposal would be:

To Calgary:
Their own 2025 1st
Jordan Harris

To NJ:
Markstrom (50% retained by MTL)

To MTL:
2024 10th OA
2nd from Calgary

It can be tweaked a little, but i think it's in the ballpark.
Also i'm not sure that Markstrom has to be retained on. Retention can be substituted with 26 OA to NJ.

If only any of these 3-way deals ever happened in real life, eh?

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'll play!

So my proposal would be:

To Calgary:
Their own 2025 1st
Jordan Harris

To NJ:
Markstrom (50% retained by MTL)

To MTL:
2024 10th OA
2nd from Calgary

It can be tweaked a little, but i think it's in the ballpark.
Also i'm not sure that Markstrom has to be retained on. Retention can be substituted with 26 OA to NJ.

That's kind of what I wanted. Engagement and tweaking, not bitter nit picks.

I've been talking with a few Flames fans and they said they rather try to trade for the 10th themselves. Markstrom at 50% plus Canucks 1st.

My only concern with Guhle is his durability. He seems to get injured a lot for such a young player. Otherwise I'd never think of trading him. But it may turn out that he becomes another Gord Kluzak; a highly skilled defensemen who spends as much time on IR as he does on the ice.


If only any of these 3-way deals ever happened in real life, eh?

Do you think this warrants trading Guhle though? 2 NHL seasons. 44 games in his 1st year and 70 last year.

 

[Laurentide]

Do you think this warrants trading Guhle though? 2 NHL seasons. 44 games in his 1st year and 70 last year.

Depends on the return. I wouldn't be in any hurry to trade him and I'd sooner part with Mailloux than either Guhle or Xhekaj, but again it all depends on who's coming the other way.

 

[Deus ex machina]

If only any of these 3-way deals ever happened in real life, eh?

What about the Dach-Romanov deal?
I'll agree that they're less likely to happen.
And it wasn't my idea to begin with.

 

[Deus ex machina]

That's kind of what I wanted. Engagement and tweaking, not bitter nit picks.

I've been talking with a few Flames fans and they said they rather try to trade for the 10th themselves. Markstrom at 50% plus Canucks 1st.

Makes sense.
But, like i said before, Flames ownership don't want to retain on players.
I'm not sure retention is still necessary though with the cap going up.
Maybe Markstrom at 100% plus Canucks 1st will be enough.
Or maybe it will be Holtz instead of 10 OA, like rumored at the TDL.

 

[RationalExpectations]

Next season Jack Hughes will be 24, Bratt 26, Hischier 25, Meier 27, Mercer 23. Schmid 24.

At one point you must avoid doing like MB and must go for it. Those guys are entering their prime and the future for the devils is now not in 5 years. A 10th overall pick is far from being guarantee to make it to the NHL d + 1. It might takes 3 to 5 years for this pick to develop in which case it will be too late to help the current core.

It makes a lot of sense for the devils to trade that pick. And they wont get an elite player for it. 10th overall picks are not worth guys like Suzuki or Caufield not even close. NYI traded their 13th overall for Romanov and while i liked Romanov he was not a high quality prospect. The value of Xhekaj must not be too far from Romanov tbh. NJ will want more but they wont get guys like Guhle with that pick that wont happen.

Suzuki will be 25, Caufield 24, Dach 24, Newhook 24, Guhle 23, Harris 25, Struble 24… In your reasoning, why would the Habs the 10OA ?

 

[LaP]

Suzuki will be 25, Caufield 24, Dach 24, Newhook 24, Guhle 23, Harris 25, Struble 24… In your reasoning, why would the Habs the 10OA ?

Because we drafted 5th last year and 5th this year again. They drafted 26th last year and 10th this year despite their goalies crapping the bed (our goalies were better). They are ahaed of us by at least 1 year in their rebuild. Also we don't have guys 26 and 27. Our rebuild will end in the summer of 2025 when Suzuki will turn 26 and we will start drafting outside the top 10. It will be the time to go for it. NJ is there this summer. They wont trade the pick for a guy in his 30ies but they will entertain trading it for a guy 28 and less next season (under contract). Don't think we have what they want though our guys are either too old, too young, not good enough or we wont trade them.

 

[WeThreeKings]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1798764086504968495

Thus was always obvious

 

[Justin11]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1798764086504968495

Thus was always obvious

I don't think anyone here would be happy with the asking price.
Time to turn the page.

 

[LaP]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1798764086504968495

Thus was always obvious

I honestly don't think we are even interested. he's not a good fit.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I honestly don't think we are even interested. he's not a good fit.

We would be if it was insanely cheap, but it won't be so we would never pursue it aggressively.

 

[LaP]

We would be if it was insanely cheap, but it won't be so we would never pursue it aggressively.

Obviously

 

[Captain Mountain]

I don't think anyone here would be happy with the asking price.
Time to turn the page.

I think the fit was also awkward, some fans just like the offensive talent and friendship with Caufield.