Toggle sidebar

HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #88: 2024-25 Season

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Weal said:
Troubas not a good player and I’m not taking him on for free. He’d be an upgrade over Struble/Barron but we still need to get paid. But wasn’t it reported that the Rangers don’t want to deal with us because of Gorton?
Click to expand...

Yes, Drudy backstabed Gorton and James Dolan hates Gorton's guts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkovsKnee and the
Saundies said:
Matheson is an upgrade on who? Trouba? How?

The whole reason we'd claim Trouba in the first place is so we can stop playing this guy so much, especially in defensive situations.


It won't. NY will always be a desired UFA spot.

People said the same thing about Vegas. These guys don't care.
Click to expand...
Trouba isn't that good.

You're getting him as a vet and you're playing him lower in the lineup and then taking time away from Matheson on the PK.

Trouba isn't good defensively, isn't good offensively and costs 8 mill.

Matheson at this point is better than Trouba and quite handedly and I'm not even a fan of Matheson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morhilane, mdk and SwiftyHab
Adam Michaels said:




I know they placed Goodrow on waivers and Sharks claimed him. But did Sharks and Rangers have a second deal for compensation?
Click to expand...

Not as of yet but it was widely reported that Goodrow rejected a trade to the Sharks as he had a 15 team no trade clause. And then Drury made a "backroom" deal with the Sharks involving waivers.

Goodrow himself said in November when the Sharks were in NY that he did not like how Drury handled his exit, without giving more details.
 
Kosseca said:
no need for Kakko. But target a C, and I'm ok with the idea.
Click to expand...
Ya there is a need, a need to shift some forwards who are going to get passed by Demidov and Co. Like.. Newhook for example. Who is not good at all on bottom lines.

Matheson to NY is kinda of a lame duck destination though I admit. We could just shift Mesar or Kidney and some low picks instead.
 
I'd be tempted by Trouba even if it's a waiver pick up with no compensation, but the main problem is he would need to actually wants to play for us. If he's going to want out the minute he's taken then no thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrei79 and Benstheman
Benstheman said:
i would definitely take him.
Click to expand...
I would too, but not before having a long talk with him. You dont want to upset the current vibe in the locker room. Adding a happy RD to the current buzz would certainly keep the momentum go, but a unhappy Truba would kill what ever is happening. So you have to be sure he's ok.

Further to that, this mean that you can trade Savard at the TDL with hopefully Reinbacher not too far from returning to play around that time. That would improve the RD by a bit.

vokiel said:
Ya there is a need, a need to shift some forwards who are going to get passed by Demidov and Co. Like.. Newhook for example. Who is not good at all on bottom lines.

Matheson to NY is kinda of a lame duck destination though I admit. We could just shift Mesar or Kidney and some low picks instead.
Click to expand...
My comment is more regarding trading Matheson for something we have a dire need for. Can we improve the W? sure, but this is not an area of concerns for now. If Matheson is traded, may as well to fix a problem, not make a marginal improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sorinth and Benstheman
Sorinth said:
I'd be tempted by Trouba even if it's a waiver pick up with no compensation, but the main problem is he would need to actually wants to play for us. If he's going to want out the minute he's taken then no thanks.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't want to play for you if you claim him, then trade him. You get something out of it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Sterling Archer
Gaylord Q Tinkledink said:
Trouba isn't that good.

You're getting him as a vet and you're playing him lower in the lineup and then taking time away from Matheson on the PK.

Trouba isn't good defensively, isn't good offensively and costs 8 mill.

Matheson at this point is better than Trouba and quite handedly and I'm not even a fan of Matheson.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly. Matheson is terrible enough 5 on 5 defensively, he should be nowhere near any situation where we have one less player. That's the upside of doing this.

Trouba is better defensively than Matheson. I'd argue pretty much every D in the NHL is better defensively than Matheson but I've rehashed these points before and no one wants to read that again.

I'd say he's just as good as Savard and would be a welcome vet addition to mentor the young guys.
 
Sorinth said:
If he was easy to trade then the NYR would just do that right now and not go through waivers in the first place.
Click to expand...

He may be more willing to waive his clause because he really doesn't want to play with Montreal. He'll have more motivation to not play with the Habs. And at the same time, he may not be willing to play ball with Drury because of the way this is all going down. Apparently, the way they handled the Goodrow situation really left a bad taste in the players' mouths.

This is all hypothetical. I doubt MTL is in on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkovsKnee
Adam Michaels said:
He may be more willing to waive his clause because he really doesn't want to play with Montreal. He'll have more motivation to not play with the Habs. And at the same time, he may not be willing to play ball with Drury because of the way this is all going down. Apparently, the way they handled the Goodrow situation really left a bad taste in the players' mouths.

This is all hypothetical. I doubt MTL is in on this.
Click to expand...
Sure it's a possibility, but it also sounds like it would be a needless distraction that could disrupt the momentum the team is trying to build. There's a lot of downside to claiming him and him not wanting to be here, for something that we probably only get something decent if we then retain 4m. Doesn't seem worth it at all.
 
Sorinth said:
Sure it's a possibility, but it also sounds like it would be a needless distraction that could disrupt the momentum the team is trying to build. There's a lot of downside to claiming him and him not wanting to be here, for something that we probably only get something decent if we then retain 4m. Doesn't seem worth it at all.
Click to expand...

Think Petry when Habs reacquired him only to trade him to Detroit. He was just an asset coming in and gone.

He could end up simply being an asset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom