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

Status
Not open for further replies.

morhilane

Registered User
Feb 28, 2021
8,820
11,434
He's certainly not perfect that is for certain, he was brutal in the last POs he's played with the Panthers. He's a 2nd pair D that has 2nd pair D qualities. He's better than Matheson.
A top pair of Matheson/Weegar is going to be awesome for the next 4 years. Lets trade Guhle, Reinbacher and Calgary's 1st for Weegar!

Am I doing this right? :sarcasm:

Seriously, another Matheson is not what the Habs need at D. Also, Weegar seems to have a full no trade clause...
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
78,385
49,692
We have a good top 6 only if:
Dach stays healthy
Slaf keeps developing
Newhook can handle the minutes
Roy can handle the minutes
Caufield can regain consciousness and get back to his regular play.


That's a lot of it's. Basically one established top 6 player and it's Suzuki and you think he's a 2C.
Young group that will mostly improve. I don't see why we can't count on that. Even if they don't, they all still produced at a good rate per 82.

The only real wildcard is health. And that's true for any team.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,458
58,536
Citizen of the world
Good player with a decent contract but I can't see him being in our plans. If we're moving Matty this year, not sure why we'd bring in a player of the same age with another 6 years on his deal. I could see a lower priced, shorter term player of that age to hold the fort if necessary.
The only other option is Larsson in Seattle. The point of moving Matheson is to make room for the wealth of LD, not because he's 30.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,458
58,536
Citizen of the world
A top pair of Matheson/Weegar is going to be awesome for the next 4 years. Lets trade Guhle, Reinbacher and Calgary's 1st for Weegar!

Am I doing this right? :sarcasm:

Seriously, another Matheson is not what the Habs need at D. Also, Weegar seems to have a full no trade clause...
They're apparently shopping Weegar for Larsson +. My offer would've been Matheson+ futures.

Then we can have a more balanced top 6. He's also not Matheson bad defensively.

Guhle-Weegar
Hutson-Savard
Xhekaj-one of Struble/Reinbacher/Mailloux/Engstrom

Much better than having one of Hutson or Guhle on the right side.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
78,385
49,692
I think today and tomorrow our top 6 is unproven theres a reason we finished in the bottom our first line did good but thats all we had
The reason we finished at the bottom was injuries and a very green D.

And even if the top six produces this year, I still think we'll miss the playoffs. Our D is just too green.
Suzuki and Slaf are sure bets i think Caufield struggled abit this year but hes a top 6 player after that we dont have much until he can stay healthy Dach is hard to include in and Roy,Newhook arent proven top 6 players yet

In the system we have Demidov who we all love and should be a first line talent and Hage that has top 6 potentiel but for now theres no guarantee they still prospects playing in junior leagues personally i do think we still need atleast one top 6 player and thats if Kirby can stay healthy or Hage become a good 2nd line center

Slafkovsky - Suzuki - Demidov
X - Dach/Hage - Caufield
Roy - Beck - Newhook
There's no reason to doubt Newhook or Dach. The only thing that gets in the way is health. That could happen to any club. Roy is unproven. But that's fine. I want him in the top six. I think he's got a shot at the Calder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miller Time

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,458
58,536
Citizen of the world
Young group that will mostly improve. I don't see why we can't count on that. Even if they don't, they all still produced at a good rate per 82.

The only real wildcard is health. And that's true for any team.
It's a lot of ifs and then you're banking on "improvement". Are we banking in regression for everyone else?

We have a below average top 6 up until they prove the opposite.
 

Deebs

Without you, everything falls apart
Feb 5, 2014
17,429
14,373
The only other option is Larsson in Seattle. The point of moving Matheson is to make room for the wealth of LD, not because he's 30.
It's both and the fact he's due for a new deal. Weegar is good, but with another 6 years, all it does is block our future RD (Rein, Maillioux) from moving up. Can't have him playing 3rd pairing at his price tag. It would be the same thing Matty is doing now, just in a couple years with a older, less effective player.

It would be a poor business decision on our behalf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miller Time

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,458
58,536
Citizen of the world
The reason we finished at the bottom was injuries and a very green D.

And even if the top six produces this year, I still think we'll miss the playoffs. Our D is just too green.

There's no reason to doubt Newhook or Dach. The only thing that gets in the way is health. That could happen to any club. Roy is unproven. But that's fine. I want him in the top six. I think he's got a shot at the Calder.
You don't think finishing 25th in 5v5 GF had anything to do with us being thus bad? It's a lot more than a bad D. Also our worse offender GD wise is Matheson.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
78,385
49,692
It's a lot of ifs and then you're banking on "improvement".
I just told you that if they can produce at what they produced at already it'd be a good group. The only guy we NEED improvement from is Roy. A very low bar for him to hit.

As is it's a good group. And it's got awesome upside.
Are we banking in regression for everyone else?

We have a below average top 6 up until they prove the opposite.
I disagree. We'll see who's right.
 
Last edited:

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
78,385
49,692
You don't think finishing 25th in 5v5 GF had anything to do with us being thus bad? It's a lot more than a bad D. Also our worse offender GD wise is Matheson.
Selective reading.

I think injuries had a lot to do with us finishing 25th in GF.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,458
58,536
Citizen of the world
It's both and the fact he's due for a new deal. Weegar is good, but with another 6 years, all it does is block our future RD (Rein, Maillioux) from moving up. Can't have him playing 3rd pairing at his price tag. It would be the same thing Matty is doing now, just in a couple years with a older, less effective player.

It would be a poor business decision on our behalf.
Natural progression should allow him to settle in a 3RD spot. 6.25 is expensive but it's not outrageous, especially in 6 years where the cap will go up a decent amount.
 

Nico Cauzuki

Registered User
Jul 19, 2009
6,569
6,728
King Of The North
There's no reason to doubt Newhook or Dach. The only thing that gets in the way is health. That could happen to any club. Roy is unproven. But that's fine. I want him in the top six. I think he's got a shot at the Calder.
I do hope we give Roy a shot at top 6 to see how he does i woudlnt mind starting the season with this 2nd line

Roy - Dach - Newhook

I agree that the potential is there but for now its still unproven
 

Miller Time

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
24,200
17,055
It's a lot of ifs and then you're banking on "improvement". Are we banking in regression for everyone else?

We have a below average top 6 up until they prove the opposite.

Compared to the league, how did our top 3 forwards rank vs our next 3?

Legit question. Will look it up later, but I'm guessing that our top 3 were lower compared to league average than our next 3, even with Dach out all year.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
78,385
49,692
I do hope we give Roy a shot at top 6 to see how he does i woudlnt mind starting the season with this 2nd line

Roy - Dach - Newhook

I agree that the potential is there but for now its still unproven
It's only unproven because they haven't been able to stay healthy. They've demonstrated the ability to produce.

But you're right, they haven't done it over 82 games.

It all comes down to health. If healthy, I think we can bank on Dach and Newhook for 50 point seasons. Roy is more of a wildcard. But honestly, there's a lot more upside to these guys than 50 points.
 
Last edited:

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,458
58,536
Citizen of the world
Compared to the league, how did our top 3 forwards rank vs our next 3?

Legit question. Will look it up later, but I'm guessing that our top 3 were lower compared to league average than our next 3, even with Dach out all year.
The first line did pretty good. The line ranks 5th in the league in GF, although that has a lot to do with the time they played together. Overall in most metrics they rank right behind Dallas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miller Time

417

When the going gets tough...
Feb 20, 2003
52,456
30,302
Ottawa
You don't think finishing 25th in 5v5 GF had anything to do with us being thus bad? It's a lot more than a bad D. Also our worse offender GD wise is Matheson.
He played the 3rd most minutes in the entire NHL last year on one of the worst teams.

He was 22nd in EV total time on ice.

When you're on the ice a lot, for a bad team, you're going to be on the ice a lot of the time when the other team scores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BehindTheTimes

ReHabs

Registered User
Sponsor
Jan 18, 2022
8,037
12,385
Dude... please.

Newhook: 34 in 55 games last year. 51 point pace over 82. Age 22
Dach: 38 in 58 games two years ago 54 point pace over 82. Age 22
Roy: 9 points in 23 games last year. 32 point pace over 82. Age 20
A 2nd line that has a 32 ppg guy on it is not good in the present.
That's a young group that has produced when healthy. And they did so at a young age.
That's not sufficient production in the present. We have a bad team in the present partially because these are our 2nd liners and this is their production.

I like Roy's potential and I've been keen to see him in the NHL. I don't think the Habs should avoid adding a physical middle6 player simply because Roy and his 32pt pace is on the roster. Dach has not shown he is a reliable player in terms of health. Newhook has not shown he can pierce through a certain scoring threshold (scoring/TOI).

In the present they would not be a 2nd line of a contending team. Adding a challenger for a spot on the top6 shouldn't be something our bad team with a bad roster should shy away from -- at the very least it will bump someone down to third line, which is a sign of good depth.
Again, I'm not sure how you don't see the depth at foward here. We have one of the deepest young groups in the league. Apart from the top six we have this year we've got Beck, Demidov and Hage coming up. None of those guys are over the age of 25. Please show me another team in the league with that kind of young forward depth.

So YES it's a good second line. One with a lot of upside to it.
Hage is years away, Beck is closer but no one expects him to be more than a middle6 player (valuable as that is, he is not projected to be a top line player), and Demidov is taken for granted -- once he joins and does as well as we hope he can do, we will see a 2nd line with one of Slaf or Caufield on it... now that's a sign of good depth. You're basically taking the counting chickens thing and turbocharging it. We shouldn't be shy to add forward depth even if all our forwards are on track to improve -- injuries, contract disputes, and the inevitable 'hitting the wall' can all happen.

Now take a look at RD. What's our depth look like there?
At the NHL level it's no good but I don't think Barron moves the needle in the NHL much at all. He needs more AHL time and that means taking time from Mailloux and Reinbacher, both of whom are more relevant to the Habs' future and as valuable depth. Maybe if one of the other two makes the jump to the NHL... but then again that explicitly means they've lapped Barron.

Bad faith is claiming that all posters who disagree with your own (poor & ungrounded) take suffer from some psychological limitation (poverty mentality).

Worse though, is throwing that crap around and then crying foul when your bad take is called out as such. I thought you claimed you'd learned from such poor posting behavior after the Slaf debacle :dunno:
I know what bad faith is:
Indeed. Hence why trades for the sake of trading is silly.
Bad faith: tilting against something I never argued.
A young player is moveable at any point.

No one I've seen has argued that Barron "can't" be moved. Why create a strawman?
There's been many arguments made that Barron should be retained on account of his untapped upside. That's the discussion.

As for strawman and bad faith... can you finally stop saying "trade for the sake of making a trade" or is that too much to ask?
Might want to check what most of Zito's 13 trades involved...

The relevance is to refute your notion that Hughes lacks the courage to make trades, either by volume or by quality of asset given up.

Your take isn't supported by the readily and easily accessible facts. So much so that it suggests either a bad faith argument or a complete lack of understanding of the very content of the argument... Bad take is a bad take.
I have not said or implied Hughes lacks courage or conviction, once again you're making a BS argument. Bad faith: citing the number of trades made by certain GMs and then immediately dismissing the number of trades as a relevant metric. Not bad faith though, is it?
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,458
58,536
Citizen of the world
He played the 3rd most minutes in the entire NHL last year on one of the worst teams.

He was 22nd in EV total time on ice.

When you're on the ice a lot, for a bad team, you're going to be on the ice a lot of the time when the other team scores.
For sure, that makes sense and it goes without saying. Yet his four pairings figure in the top 50 of GA/60 too.

I wish It was only about too much ice.
 

ReHabs

Registered User
Sponsor
Jan 18, 2022
8,037
12,385
For sure, that makes sense and it goes without saying. Yet his four pairings figure in the top 50 of GA/60 too.

I wish It was only about too much ice.
I'm not nearly as down on Matheson as some others, and I don't think he should be dealt (nor do I think Hughes would deal him), but his playing as a top-pairing d-man has contributed a lot to the perception of the Habs playing pond-hockey under MSL. He's very... loosey goosey. I hope things tighten up this coming year.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
78,385
49,692
A 2nd line that has a 32 ppg guy on it is not good in the present.
:laugh:

He was 20 years old in limited minutes in his rookie year. I don't think he's going to be a 32 point player this year. Do you?
That's not sufficient production in the present. We have a bad team in the present partially because these are our 2nd liners and this is their production.

I like Roy's potential and I've been keen to see him in the NHL. I don't think the Habs should avoid adding a physical middle6 player simply because Roy and his 32pt pace is on the roster. Dach has not shown he is a reliable player in terms of health. Newhook has not shown he can pierce through a certain scoring threshold (scoring/TOI).

In the present they would not be a 2nd line of a contending team. Adding a challenger for a spot on the top6 shouldn't be something our bad team with a bad roster should shy away from -- at the very least it will bump someone down to third line, which is a sign of good depth.
Again, I think we'll have a solid top six. You don't? That's cool.

We'll see who's right.
Hage is years away, Beck is closer but no one expects him to be more than a middle6 player (valuable as that is, he is not projected to be a top line player), and Demidov is taken for granted -- once he joins and does as well as we hope he can do, we will see a 2nd line with one of Slaf or Caufield on it... now that's a sign of good depth. You're basically taking the counting chickens thing and turbocharging it. We shouldn't be shy to add forward depth even if all our forwards are on track to improve -- injuries, contract disputes, and the inevitable 'hitting the wall' can all happen.
Yep. Bad things can happen. News at eleven. Bad things could happen with McG if we traded for him too.

There's absolutely zero reason to deviate from the plan here. Not now. If injuries happen or players don't produce, then you can re-evaluate.

It's almost certain that not all of these players will pan out. There will be injuries. There will be disapointments. But for you to say there's no forward depth is nonsense. And again, I think we need Barron more than we need McG. We have far more depth up front than we do at RD.
At the NHL level it's no good but I don't think Barron moves the needle in the NHL much at all. He needs more AHL time and that means taking time from Mailloux and Reinbacher, both of whom are more relevant to the Habs' future and as valuable depth. Maybe if one of the other two makes the jump to the NHL... but then again that explicitly means they've lapped Barron.
Maybe Barron doesn't pan out. But the potential is there. I don't see the hurry to ditch a 6'2 RD defenseman who can skate. Not for a player who'd slot in at a position we already have an abundance of players at.
 

Captain Mountain

Formerly Captain Wolverine
Jun 6, 2010
21,130
15,266
A 2nd line that has a 32 ppg guy on it is not good in the present.

That's not sufficient production in the present. We have a bad team in the present partially because these are our 2nd liners and this is their production.

I like Roy's potential and I've been keen to see him in the NHL. I don't think the Habs should avoid adding a physical middle6 player simply because Roy and his 32pt pace is on the roster. Dach has not shown he is a reliable player in terms of health. Newhook has not shown he can pierce through a certain scoring threshold (scoring/TOI).

In the present they would not be a 2nd line of a contending team. Adding a challenger for a spot on the top6 shouldn't be something our bad team with a bad roster should shy away from -- at the very least it will bump someone down to third line, which is a sign of good depth.

Putting aside the fact that Roy was got points at a higher rate than any regular Hab at ES, Florida literally just won a cup with Lundell/Luostarinen/Rodrigues getting under 40 points and playing a top-6 role.

The entire root of the debate is stupid though, because it ignores what the other team would want. The issue isn't whether Montreal should trade an extra young D for a physical forward prospect with upside, its that the young D in question don't have the value to get the forwards people are talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad