The bolded seems like drawing conclusions based on biased interpretation. We've also seen impassioned arguments to trade Savard, Matheson, Barron, Xhekaj, Harris, Guhle, Evans, Newhook, Montembault and even Caufield.
Well yes, of course -- we have a bad team and fans want to horse-trade to get a better team. Hughes has been trading away players left and right as much as he could, and he doesn't look like stopping either.
The general opinion is (and has always been) that its less about trading someone and more what the team may be getting if they do trade someone. You can say trade Barron, but if the best trade you can get is Barron+ for Kaliyev, then you're going to get a lot more pushback than a Barron++ for McGroarty.
Well there is a lot of push-back against the notion of trading
Barron regardless of the return. Barron.
I'm also not sure why you're saying about Bergevin. It is absolutely true that Bergevin's approach was the "former" (having a small core group). Under Bergevin, especially after 2015, there was a LOT of roster turnover every season. In the end the core was basically Weber, Price, Petry, Suzuki and Gallagher (and arguably Danault). The major difference between Vegas and Florida vs what Bergevin did (apart from having a better core group) is, in the case of Vegas he didn't commit to winning in the present at all other costs and in the case of Florida, he didn't focus on exploiting inefficiencies.
You have it wrong. Weber was in his late 30s, Price was in his late 30s, Petry in his mid 30s, Suzuki under-proven, Gallagher cooked, and Danault allowed to leave -- that's not a core and never was. Bergevin's "small core" was not a core, it was just small because of how bad the rest of the roster was at all times.
Whilst having massive gaps in the core positions, Bergevin was investing 6 years in the likes of Andrew Shaw and handing out big contracts to Alzner and Anderson and that instant stinker to Gallagher. A team prioritises big investments in its core but absent having those players Bergevin invested anywhere he could. We never had a core under Bergevin, from day 1 he was very much a "win by committee" type and over-invested in the so-called committee. He over-relied on Bouillon, on Weise, on Danault, on Desharnais, etc.
Montreal right now doesn't have a small core group that can win a cup. They may not even have a small core group that can make the playoffs. Almost every fan on here wants a small core group and leaving every other player-asset available for a swap. But by far the best way to get that core group is through the draft (generally drafting in high and often) and development.
Other than the occasional Caufield proposal, I haven't seen anyone propose to trade away intended-to-be core players Slafkovsky, Reinbacher, Hutson, Demidov, or Suzuki.
So any trade outside has to consider risks (losing players that haven't finished developing, good draft picks) vs what is to be gained. And opinions differ on the value there.
Yes that's how it works.
www.tsn.ca
