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

[Jaynki]

I have liked Laine since the peg. Seen him many times live in the peg. awesome shot.
make a hockey deal KH what a boost for the PP

Awesome shot but also way more than just a shot. Dude is an elite player when he is on.

He is the mother of all reclamation project.

I know there are many red flags but poor guy have played in two of the most dysfunctioning franchise. This guy is a superstar. In MTL, he would have the stage but without the pressure to be THE guy.

I think our market would do to him what it did to Kovalev and Cammalleri.

 

[sampollock]

Awesome shot but also way more than just a shot. Dude is an elite player when he is on.

He is the mother of all reclamation project.

I know there are many red flags but poor guy have played in two of the most dysfunctioning franchise. This guy is a superstar. In MTL, he would have the stage but without the pressure to be THE guy.

I think our market would do to him what it did to Kovalev and Cammalleri.

He is the mother of all reclamation project.....that is the key sentence right there.

 

[The Great Weal]

Canucks will need to clear up some cap, especially with their interest in Guentzel. Would like to get a 1st from them for taking on Mikheyev, but given how his buyout cap hit will be 1.15, 2.15, 1.55, and 1.55 for the next 4 years, I'd say they will just buy him out instead of giving up a 1st.

 

[Habs Halifax]

He is the mother of all reclamation project.....that is the key sentence right there.

2 years is the problem. Lets say we do trade for him and he breaks out with us... Could walk and we are left with nothing.

If we trade for Laine, the cost has to be manageable. And I'm a huge Laine fan. That shot is elite level.

 

[sampollock]

Canucks will need to clear up some cap, especially with their interest in Guentzel. Would like to get a 1st from them for taking on Mikheyev, but given how his buyout cap hit will be 1.15, 2.15, 1.55, and 1.55 for the next 4 years, I'd say they will just buy him out instead of giving up a 1st.

not sure if he is a fit. not a huge goal man

2 years is the problem. Lets say we do trade for him and he breaks out with us... Could walk and we are left with nothing.

If we trade for Laine, the cost has to be manageable.

that is a good point
but 2 years is good to UNLESS he does not turn out.

it needs to be a smart hockey trade for this to work

 

[Jaynki]

2 years is the problem. Lets say we do trade for him and he breaks out with us... Could walk and we are left with nothing.

Yes, or we extend him and he completes our core perfectly.

I mean, if we do trade for him, its in the hope he will break out for real.

 

[sampollock]

Yes, or we extend him and he completes our core perfectly.

I mean, if we do trade for him, its in the hope he will break out for real.

gotta take that chance, have to if he deal to get him is solid

 

[The Great Weal]

not sure if he is a fit. not a huge goal man

It's mostly to get another 1st. Habs won't be good for a while, get as many quality picks/prospects as possible since not all of them will pan out. The more you have the better your odds.

 

[sampollock]

It's mostly to get another 1st. Habs won't be good for a while, get as many quality picks/prospects as possible since not all of them will pan out. The more you have the better your odds.

solid point

trade the 26th and ++ to get another top 10 or 15?

 

[417]

2 years is the problem. Lets say we do trade for him and he breaks out with us... Could walk and we are left with nothing.

If we trade for Laine, the cost has to be manageable. And I'm a huge Laine fan. That shot is elite level.

In this scenario, Hughes would never let him walk for nothing.

 

[sampollock]

Matheson would be good fit for the OIL.
they need so bad a d man that can skate and gain the zone for conner and his gang

 

[JeffreyLFC]

In this scenario, Hughes would never let him walk for nothing.

Not to mention Montreal is probably the best place if you are a star player. He would most likely want to stay.

 

[Habsfan18]

The latest from Eric Engles:

It’s no secret the Canadiens will be exploring trades that help improve the here and now to push their rebuild into its next phase.

The market is heating up and it’s safe to assume general manager Kent Hughes has at least a few irons stoking its fire. He’s got the aforementioned picks to play with, a loaded left side of his NHL defence to move from, and there may be a prospect or two he’d be willing to part with to help net the Canadiens the type of player they’re after.

A bona fide top-six forward is the target. We’ll see if Hughes hits it before week’s end.

If not, trades will continue to transpire through the off-season and free agency is around the corner.

If the Canadiens don’t find a trade for a bona fide top-six forward that makes sense to them, I think they’ll try to package the 26th pick with other assets to acquire another top-10 pick.

Under this scenario, they could select two future core players and turn to free agency to fill more immediate needs.

It’s anything but assured they’ll be able to make such a move, but that’s why they call it a bold prediction.

 

[417]

Not to mention Montreal is probably the best place if you are a star player. He would most likely want to stay.

I mean, if the Habs do trade for him and he finds his game again...I would expect that both parties will want to continue that relationship.

 

[The Great Weal]

The latest from Eric Engles:

It’s no secret the Canadiens will be exploring trades that help improve the here and now to push their rebuild into its next phase.

The market is heating up and it’s safe to assume general manager Kent Hughes has at least a few irons stoking its fire. He’s got the aforementioned picks to play with, a loaded left side of his NHL defence to move from, and there may be a prospect or two he’d be willing to part with to help net the Canadiens the type of player they’re after.

A bona fide top-six forward is the target. We’ll see if Hughes hits it before week’s end.

If not, trades will continue to transpire through the off-season and free agency is around the corner.

If the Canadiens don’t find a trade for a bona fide top-six forward that makes sense to them, I think they’ll try to package the 26th pick with other assets to acquire another top-10 pick.

Under this scenario, they could select two future core players and turn to free agency to fill more immediate needs.

It’s anything but assured they’ll be able to make such a move, but that’s why they call it a bold prediction.

Engels as insightful as always

 

[Saundies]

The issue is Matheson is unique on this team with what he does. Habs have virtually no offence from the backend outside of Matheson who is a proficient puck carrier and transitions well. He's absolutely worth more than Savard but he's also needed more than Savard on this team. Can Hutson, Reinbacher, Mailloux etc. replace him? Probably someone eventually will but Habs have 2 more years of Matheson to figure it out and are not in a rush to move him without a backstop already in place. That's too risky a move and not necessary, not to mention the pressure you'd be putting on a 1st year rookie that could have series adverse effects on their development.

Savard is a shut down D which can more easily be replaced if they had to. Matheson is a 50+ point D which isn't so easily replaced.

Why is he needed more than Savard on this particular edition of the team? This is the question I'm asking you. Savard is a vet, who has won the cup, and doesn't mind mentoring the young kids coming up on a losing team.

If Mike Matheson is absolutely needed for the next two years, what does this team accomplish overall that it doesn't without him on the team? Do they make the playoffs? Do they win the cup? You talk as if the team is really good, Matheson is a core part of why, and trading him will throw off the entire balance of our offense. This isn't the case.

If he's here mainly for mentoring, we can get a veteran defensive D on the UFA market for 1/2, 3/4 of the price. Nobody is suggesting to throw Lane Hutson/Mailloux/Reinbacher/etc to the wolves and take up his ice time/role, it would just be spread around to various other members.

Even if I liked Matheson, he would be classified as a nice piece to have currently. Given his age and the fact that he's under contract for the next two years only, he should absolutely be on the table for any sort of trade that improves this team's future prospects.

 

[Habs Halifax]

In this scenario, Hughes would never let him walk for nothing.

Well, that does come at a time when Dach, Guhle, Slaf, Newhook and others get new deals as well. It could get complicated.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Why is he needed more than Savard on this particular edition of the team? This is the question I'm asking you. Savard is a vet, who has won the cup, and doesn't mind mentoring the young kids coming up on a losing team.

If Mike Matheson is absolutely needed for the next two years, what does this team accomplish overall that it doesn't without him on the team? Do they make the playoffs? Do they win the cup? You talk as if the team is really good, Matheson is a core part of why, and trading him will throw off the entire balance of our offense. This isn't the case.

If he's here mainly for mentoring, we can get a veteran defensive D on the UFA market for 1/2, 3/4 of the price. Nobody is suggesting to throw Lane Hutson/Mailloux/Reinbacher/etc to the wolves and take up his ice time/role, it would just be spread around to various other members.

Even if I liked Matheson, he would be classified as a nice piece to have currently. Given his age and the fact that he's under contract for the next two years only, he should absolutely be on the table for any sort of trade that improves this team's future prospects.

Here is a question? Hughes talked about improving and moving up the standings. Based on where our young D is, we need both Savard and Matheson. However, wouldn't the best move be to have more top 10 picks in the next two drafts? Without both of them this season, our D would be even more younger. Can then survive and still develop/learn on the job while going through rough times? How much youth learning on the job is too much?

I do wonder how desperate Molson/Gorton/Hughes are to move up the standings. You look at teams like the Sabres and Sens and how their transition years have prolonged. Started their rebuild before us.

I do trust Hughes and we got to be careful with what is said in press conferences. They are going to measure how good our youth is and hopefully they push us up more than management tries to haul them up. That kind of thing.

 

[417]

Well, that does come at a time when Dach, Guhle, Slaf, Newhook and others get new deals as well. It could get complicated.

If it gets complicated, that's a good sign...means everyone is earning their bump.

Cap is rising, teams figure it out.

 

[Habs Halifax]

If it gets complicated, that's a good sign...means everyone is earning their bump.

Cap is rising, teams figure it out.

With or without Laine, that cap growth and timing of when we have to extend guys is something I have my eyes on. Imagine if Suzuki's needed a new contract this summer? Timing is everything and a growing cap is going to create greed with agents. Subban's timing was right for him but not the Habs. Bridge and then needed a new contract with a looming cap increase.

I like deals that work for both the team and player. Not either or.

 

[417]

With or without Laine, that cap growth and timing of when we have to extend guys is something I have my eyes on. Imagine if Suzuki's needed a new contract this summer? Timing is everything and a growing cap is going to create greed with agents. Subban's timing was right for him but not the Habs. Bridge and then needed a new contract with a looming cap increase.

I like deals that work for both the team and player. Not either or.

Sure, it's just not realistic...some guys are invariably going to make more money than the team would like to pay them, just like some guys on ELCs or 2nd contracts make way less money than what they contribute.

You'll never have a 23 man roster with 23 amazing contracts, just doesn't work that way.

But I do agree that timing is everything but I feel like for now, the Habs are in really good shape. They're not committing long term money for older players and a lot of their "bad" contracts are coming off the books in the next 2-4 years.

 

[Saundies]

Here is a question? Hughes talked about improving and moving up the standings. Based on where our young D is, we need both Savard and Matheson. However, wouldn't the best move be to have more top 10 picks in the next two drafts? Without both of them this season, our D would be even more younger. Can then survive and still develop/learn on the job while going through rough times? How much youth learning on the job is too much?

I do wonder how desperate Molson/Gorton/Hughes are to move up the standings. You look at teams like the Sabres and Sens and how their transition years have prolonged. Started their rebuild before us.

I do trust Hughes and we got to be careful with what is said in press conferences. They are going to measure how good our youth is and hopefully they push us up more than management tries to haul them up. That kind of thing.

I understand this, I do. You never want to build a losing culture. Teams that tank too much and lose all the time just burn their guys out and then it's a vicious cycle.

I'm not advocating for trading both Savard and Matheson. I'm just not understanding this aura about Matheson that "we absolutely need this guy and we can't trade him." It makes no sense to me. It'd be like if we signed Jake Guentzel or Sam Reinhart to a 2 year deal at this stage and claimed they were a big part of our team's future.

If Matheson was 20-25 putting up these points and we were going to re-sign him, absolutely don't trade him. He's going to be there, you're going to want his offense on your team. The guy had one amazing year (points-wise.. I won't rehash my issues with his D over and over) at 30 and is going to be looking for a big raise on his next contract. Why is he untouchable to some fans when we're not even competitive?

We traded Toffoli, Monahan, Lehkonen, etc because of these reasons, but Matheson is now suddenly untouchable and can't be traded because our team "needs him" for two years?

 

[Habs Halifax]

I understand this, I do. You never want to build a losing culture. Teams that tank too much and lose all the time just burn their guys out and then it's a vicious cycle.

I'm not advocating for trading both Savard and Matheson. I'm just not understanding this aura about Matheson that "we absolutely need this guy and we can't trade him." It makes no sense to me. It'd be like if we signed Jake Guentzel or Sam Reinhart to a 2 year deal at this stage and claimed they were a big part of our team's future.

If Matheson was 20-25 putting up these points and we were going to re-sign him, absolutely don't trade him. He's going to be there, you're going to want his offense on your team. The guy had one amazing year (points-wise.. I won't rehash my issues with his D over and over) at 30 and is going to be looking for a big raise on his next contract. Why is he untouchable to some fans when we're not even competitive?

We traded Toffoli, Monahan, Lehkonen, etc because of these reasons, but Matheson is now suddenly untouchable and can't be traded because our team "needs him" for two years?

We are going to see more of this as we transition closer to playoffs. Lots of fans want to sell for futures and you can't blame them but on the other hand, we can't be a 100% team that is age 25 and under either.

Hughes does show me he has the IQ to manage this well. I know MSL wanted Monahan to stay but Hughes made the better long term decision.

 

[dauv]

Engels as insightful as always

what the f&*k was that. That is quite the awesome reporting.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Exactly.
Plus we're gonna have to start investing quality offense minutes into our young D to see what they're capable of and develop them. As long as Matheson remains, he's likely eating up a significant amount of those no matter what.
The goal isn't to head into a competitive window with 33yo+ Matheson making 7M$+ as our top offensive weapon on D. That would be a waste of a rebuild.

Actually, many competitive teams have a 32-34 year old defenceman and $7M is not prohibitive.. Let's stop thinking on a shoestring, the cap is close to $90M.