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

[Saundies]

I think giving up on Barron now would be like, just as an example; if Winnipeg gave up on Morrissey at 22. Now there's no guarantee or even a good chance he develops the same way, but with dmen, especially ones with good pedigrees as prospects, good size, and good skating, you should try to hold on to them for as long as possible to see if there's anything there. It takes dmen a while sometimes.

Obviously there's a point where, like with Beaulieu, it just becomes clear that he doesn't have it, but I don't think Barron is at that point yet.

This is a fair point for sure.

It's hard to say with this new management team because there hasn't been a lot of runway in terms of development yet, but I think there is still quite a bit of PTSD from the last group. We held onto plenty of guys who didn't develop or pan out, and that's why we now look back in hindsight at the "Poehling for Ryan O'Reilly" trade possibility or how Jacob De La Rose was somehow untouchable for a while after 4-5 good games.

I do think an underrated skill of a GM/scouting staff is to identify who your horses are going to be and who you can potentially sell high on. You're not going to be right everytime, or wrong everytime either. But I think these calculated risks help you advance and get closer to the top.

For example, Sergachev for Drouin turned into a disaster, but I could at least see what MB was thinking when he did it at the time. It just didn't work out.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Are you looking at tomorrow in this comment or are you looking at today?

Today: we have a terrible top six.
Tomorrow: we have an unproven top six.

Adding another (future or present) middle6 forward to a middle6 that has Anderson and/or Gallagher and/or Dvorak and/or Armia in it should not cause so much concern.

We do not have a terrible top six. We have a good one. If we stay healthy, we'll prove it.
Tomorrow we'll have a great one.

As for adding McG... I don't think it's a terrible move. It might work. But I see him as a third liner at best on this team. Barron's got upside and position scarcity going for him. Slaf, Nick, CC, Dach, Demidov are clearly better. Then there's Roy and Newhook with Hage on the way. McG isn't a clear upgrade on any of those players.

Barron's a 6'2, smooth skating right shot blueliner. He has more upside and we have a positional need there.

Maybe Barron will never be what we hoped. But I'd give him the chance to show what he can do.

 

[ReHabs]

So only forwards count? We shouldn't care about blueline prospects?

The proposed trade didn't feature any of our roster forwards. Adding another potential 2nd liner shouldn't even be a problem even if we had a "full" second line. It's called depth, I know it's unusual for the Habs to have it.

Again, you aren't getting it.

It's not a weak roster, it's a rebuilding roster. At best McG would be a 2nd liner. We've already got that talent in our line up coming up.

So you get to conflate present/future at your convenience -- is that it? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish.

Our present top6 is weak and unproven. Our future top6 can look like anything but it's certainly unproven. No one said we're not in a transition period but what's important to note is "rebuilding rosters" tend to have a lot of chance. You don't lock in Roy, Newhook, and Dach for years to come. It could be not one of them is a Hab come next year or the one after. We're rebuilding, after all.

 

[BaseballCoach]

The proposed trade didn't feature any of our roster forwards. Adding another potential 2nd liner shouldn't even be a problem even if we had a "full" second line. It's called depth, I know it's unusual for the Habs to have it.

So you get to conflate present/future at your convenience -- is that it? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish.

Our present top6 is weak and unproven. Our future top6 can look like anything but it's certainly unproven. No one said we're not in a transition period but what's important to note is "rebuilding rosters" tend to have a lot of chance. You don't lock in Roy, Newhook, and Dach for years to come. It could be not one of them is a Hab come next year or the one after. We're rebuilding, after all.

Well, at least one of them should get bumped out of top 6 by Demidov.

I don't see McGroarty as a strong bet for top-6, but rather a heavy bottom line player with a touch of scoring (eg Dale Weise, Joel Armia?).

I'd rather take a short-term flyer on Laine if the price is affordable.

 

[ReHabs]

We do not have a terrible top six. We have a good one. If we stay healthy, we'll prove it.
Tomorrow we'll have a great one.

Newhook career high: 34 pts
Joshua Roy career high: 9pts
Kirby Dach career high: 38 pts.

That's a good top6 in the present? Talk about counting chickens. We have different standards and expectations, so I don't need to argue this with you.

As for adding McG... I don't think it's a terrible move. It might work. But I see him as a third liner at best on this team. Barron's got upside and position scarcity going for him. Slaf, Nick, CC, Dach, Demidov are clearly better. Then there's Roy and Newhook with Hage on the way. McG isn't a clear upgrade on any of those players.

Barron's a 6'2, smooth skating right shot blueliner. He has more upside and we have a positional need there.

Maybe Barron will never be what we hoped. But I'd give him the chance to show what he can do.

Much better argument -- it's a matter of preference.

To boil it down: I think the Habs should add a forward to the roster if they see him as a top6 or middle6 NHL forward (because we do not have enough quality top6/middle6 players). You think Barron should not be used as the makeweight for this acquisition. I think Barron is expendable; you think his upside is too valuable. I think with Mailloux there, and Reinbacher too, it is unlike Barron outpaces both of them. I also think our trade counter-part doesn't want junk and will prefer to acquire a piece they find valuable/relevant to their needs -- if Hughes hold onto Barron with an icy-cold grip and fails to improve the NHL roster he'll be no better than Bergevin.

Well, at least one of them should get bumped out of top 6 by Demidov.

I don't see McGroarty as a strong bet for top-6, but rather a heavy bottom line player with a touch of scoring (eg Dale Weise, Joel Armia?).

I'd rather take a short-term flyer on Laine if the price is affordable.

I prefer Laine too and I feel like Hughes will kick the tires on him but his status as an active NHLer is not yet established so he cannot be traded.

I have no strong feeling for or against McG, it's mostly the principal: I believe a good team's third line has players who'd be a bad team's second liners. We have a bad team, we need to improve the roster to become a good team. Whether it's Laine or McG or Zegras or Necas or whoever -- we need to add some quality NHLers and push out some not-quality ones somehow.

 

[Miller Time]

Every trade is for the sake of making a trade. Tautology.

In video games, perhaps. Catachresis.

Unlike this fanbase, Kent Hughes seems to understand being a tight-fisted miser doesn't get you anywhere but he's also not built a winning team yet.

Being impatient and having unrealistic expectations is a great way to be in a constant state of inappropriate frustration... Would've thought the Slaf experience made that pretty obvious around here.

In any case, selling players in a firesale/rebuild is much simpler than improving a roster by acquiring them.

If the goal is making trades for the sake of it, perhaps.

If the goal is to build a contending roster, than this statement couldn't be more wrong.

Hughes got rinsed on the Lehkonen trade but the relative harm is much less impactful than the reverse situation: if he gave up quality prospects to acquire a roster player who then fell flat-on-his-face. Bergevin was afraid of getting those deals wrong but I hope Hughes is more brave -- our players deserve a chance to win.

Courage and competence are different attributes all together.

For all his shortcomings, a lack of courage was not Bergevin's issue.

To improve a roster you have to swap assets for roster-upgrades, that means the other side has to see sufficient value in what is offered in the exchange.

Improving your roster has very little, if not nothing, to do with how an opposing GM values your team's assets.

The quality and accuracy of your own assessments is what matters most... This was perhaps Bergevin's greatest shortcoming... And the most glaring commonality amongst the the truly awful takes around here... Typically found in posters who fall prey to recency bias and a lack of understanding of athlete development curves.

It's not 'giving up on Barron' it's quite literally 'trading him [to a team that sees value in him] to acquire a player [in whom we see value]' -- it's a world of difference.

Trading a player (or in this case, arguing in favor of) "for the sake of making a trade", and doing so at a valuation that completely ignores quite easily attained individual and historical development context, is a sign of poor assessment ability.

And what's the kicker here is Barron couldn't secure a spot on one of the worst d-corps in the NHL, so it's not like he's particularly valuable as an NHL player in the first place.

Kinda like Forsling at the same age....

It's not a "kicker", it's a 22 year old athlete in the still early stages of development. One who is actually far more established than the typical curve.

Many here seem to bristle at the notion "you have to give [something valuable] to get [something valuable]", hence 'poverty mentality'.

I haven't seen that. Rather, I see a bad take & grasping at straws to try to rationalize it.

 

[ReHabs]

You're completely missing the point. Posters have explained themselves with good reason why holding on to Barron might be a good idea for now - I'm sure you've read those so no idea why you're ignoring that logic to take a shot. Has nothing to do with "poverty mentality".

Every player could have this argument made for them -- even Kotkaniemi has hangers-on and die hards. Even Drouin had them to the very last minute. Every player has "untapped upside".

You have to utilise assets in a good way sometimes, and that means giving them away even if you like them. Las Vegas certainly didn't think they're sending junk away when they traded Suzuki in that package to the Habs but they wanted Pacioretty more.

If there's a trade that makes sense sure you trade him. He's not untouchable - far from it and I haven't seen anyone here implying he is. And with how crap people seem to think he is, I'm not sure what they're expecting back even if we were to trade him, so what's the point?

He's not untouchable -- exactly my point. The next question is just how touchable is he? There we differ.

The guy is a whopping 22 years old....plays RD, good size and clearly has ability. Might as well roll the dice and see if he can seize the opportunity this year since we're already short on RD. It would make far more sense to move Harris since we have way too many LD. Not a young RD thats still trying to put it together....

He's also terrible defensively and couldn't crack the Habs' awful roster and is on the verge of losing his waiver exemption.

I think Harris has more value because he's actually secured an NHL spot but they're the same sort of player: tweeners we shouldn't think are must-keeps. I think we agree on that.

Keeping Barron for now may turn out to be a pleasant surprise this year that can either A) improve his trade value if we still want to trade him, or B) become a long term stay on our roster. Those are both good outcomes. No need to move him just yet

There's no need to move anyone just yet... except when you want to improve the roster and need to move an asset-with-value to get another asset-with-value that you want more. This is what I mean by the poverty mentality, many people simply refuse to acknowledge that you have to give to get.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The proposed trade didn't feature any of our roster forwards. Adding another potential 2nd liner shouldn't even be a problem even if we had a "full" second line. It's called depth, I know it's unusual for the Habs to have it.

But we don't have it at RD.

And you may not believe this but we're pretty deep at forward going forward.

So you get to conflate present/future at your convenience -- is that it? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish.

I'm trying to explain to you that we're a work in progress building towards something. That requires patience. And patience isn't something that you have demontrasted in the past.

Our present top6 is weak and unproven.

Nah.

Our first line is young and improved drastically in the back half of last year. Our 2nd line consists of two guys who've shown they can produce when healthy. Roy is unproven at the NHL level but certainly not a weak prospect. I think the top six will be good this year and will only improve going forward.

Our future top6 can look like anything but it's certainly unproven. No one said we're not in a transition period but what's important to note is "rebuilding rosters" tend to have a lot of chance. You don't lock in Roy, Newhook, and Dach for years to come. It could be not one of them is a Hab come next year or the one after. We're rebuilding, after all.

Nobody is saying you lock in Roy or Newhook. But you give them a chance. One of them is going to be bounced to the bottom six anyway.

If a clear cut better prospect comes along... great. Pull the trigger. But McG isn't it.

You have to give players a chance to show what they can do. Our top six are all 25 and younger and filled with potential. Barron is 22 years old. We have to show them patience.

 

[Miller Time]

Panthers horse-traded like the best of 'em to get the team with which they ran -- that includes one of their Big 3.

Do you think they made trades for the sake of making trades? Or is that just a Habs thing you don't want the Habs to do?

Zito has made 13 trades since Hughes took over the Habs. Hughes 29 in that span.

Might want to ground your takes in reality before diving in lol

 

[ReHabs]

Zito has made 13 trades since Hughes took over the Habs. Hughes 29 in that span.

Might want to ground your takes on reality before diving in lol

Judging by your other comment reply I've just read, I don't think you're discussing in good faith. The number of trades is irrelevant to the nature of the move made by the GM. The topic is to figure out at what point a young player can be considered moveable. Selling Kovacevic for a late round pick is one of Hughes' 29 trades -- hardly relevant to anything.

 

[Mrb1p]

Flames apparently looking to move Weegar. He'd be a good vet to have on the RD. A bit long term wise but the money is manageable.

 

[ReHabs]

If a clear cut better prospect comes along... great. Pull the trigger. But McG isn't it.

So in summary you don't think McGroarty is worth acquiring. That's perfectly fine.

You have to give players a chance to show what they can do. Our top six are all 25 and younger and filled with potential. We have to show them patience.

Once again, where is this coming from? I'm talking about Barron, the 22 year old RD who is about to be lapped by RD Mailloux, I've not said a word about trading any of our esteemed and prestigious glittering top6 NHLers.

Trading a player (or in this case, arguing in favor of) "for the sake of making a trade", and doing so at a valuation that completely ignores quite easily attained individual and historical development context, is a sign of poor assessment ability.

Improving the roster and making it toughing is the opposite of trading for the sake of trading but you have in your mind that I've said something I've clearly not said, so you're boxing and weaving against a non-argument. Have fun at that.

 

[The Real Timo]

Flames apparently looking to move Weegar. He'd be a good vet to have on the RD. A bit long term wise but the money is manageable.

I know he can be mean and I'd be all for it. I at all don't remember if he is any good in his own end though. But then... neither are Harris or Barron.

 

[Mrb1p]

We do not have a terrible top six. We have a good one. If we stay healthy, we'll prove it.
Tomorrow we'll have a great one.

As for adding McG... I don't think it's a terrible move. It might work. But I see him as a third liner at best on this team. Barron's got upside and position scarcity going for him. Slaf, Nick, CC, Dach, Demidov are clearly better. Then there's Roy and Newhook with Hage on the way. McG isn't a clear upgrade on any of those players.

Barron's a 6'2, smooth skating right shot blueliner. He has more upside and we have a positional need there.

Maybe Barron will never be what we hoped. But I'd give him the chance to show what he can do.

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.

I know he can be mean and I'd be all for it. I at all don't remember if he is any good in his own end though. But then... neither are Harris or Barron.

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.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Newhook career high: 34 pts
Joshua Roy career high: 9pts
Kirby Dach career high: 38 pts.

That's a good top6 in the present? Talk about counting chickens. We have different standards and expectations, so I don't need to argue this with you.

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

That's a young group that has produced when healthy. And they did so at a young age.

Much better argument -- it's a matter of preference.

To boil it down: I think the Habs should add a forward to the roster if they see him as a top6 or middle6 NHL forward (because we do not have enough quality top6/middle6 players). You think Barron should not be used as the makeweight for this acquisition. I think Barron is expendable; you think his upside is too valuable. I think with Mailloux there, and Reinbacher too, it is unlike Barron outpaces both of them. I also think our trade counter-part doesn't want junk and will prefer to acquire a piece they find valuable/relevant to their needs -- if Hughes hold onto Barron with an icy-cold grip and fails to improve the NHL roster he'll be no better than Bergevin.

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.

Now take a look at RD. What's our depth look like there?

 

[Nico Cauzuki]

We do not have a terrible top six. We have a good one. If we stay healthy, we'll prove it.
Tomorrow we'll have a great one.

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

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

 

[Miller Time]

Judging by your other comment reply I've just read, I don't think you're discussing in good faith.

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

The number of trades is irrelevant to the nature of the move made by the GM.

Indeed. Hence why trades for the sake of trading is silly.

The topic is to figure out at what point a young player can be considered moveable.

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?

Selling Kovacevic for a late round pick is one of Hughes' 29 trades -- hardly relevant to anything.

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.

 

[Gustave]

Yost: Los Angeles Kings positioned to be an offer sheet target | TSN

Quietly, the Los Angeles Kings have been navigating a challenging off-season with regards to the salary cap. Travis Yost explains how the Kings could be targeted by another club with cap space this summer.

www.tsn.ca

Do we have enough draft capital to sign Byfield to an outrageous 13mil a year OS?
We have two sets of draft picks next season, after that I think we two 2026 2nd rd picks.

I’d go for it. Our only job for the next two seasons would be to figure out how to get a top 4 RD with mileage to isolate DR and LM.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Much better argument -- it's a matter of preference.

To boil it down: I think the Habs should add a forward to the roster if they see him as a top6 or middle6 NHL forward (because we do not have enough quality top6/middle6 players). You think Barron should not be used as the makeweight for this acquisition. I think Barron is expendable; you think his upside is too valuable. I think with Mailloux there, and Reinbacher too, it is unlike Barron outpaces both of them. I also think our trade counter-part doesn't want junk and will prefer to acquire a piece they find valuable/relevant to their needs -- if Hughes hold onto Barron with an icy-cold grip and fails to improve the NHL roster he'll be no better than Bergevin.

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.

 

[Deebs]

Flames apparently looking to move Weegar. He'd be a good vet to have on the RD. A bit long term wise but the money is manageable.

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.

 

[Miller Time]

Improving the roster and making it toughing is the opposite of trading for the sake of trading but you have in your mind that I've said something I've clearly not said, so you're boxing and weaving against a non-argument. Have fun at that.

Nope. Just responding clearly and directly to your numerous false claims.

Perhaps you don't mean what you actually write

 

[Deebs]

Do we have enough draft capital to sign Byfield to an outrageous 13mil a year OS?
We have two sets of draft picks next season, after that I think we two 2026 2nd rd picks.

I’d go for it. Our only job for the next two seasons would be to figure out how to get a top 4 RD with mileage to isolate DR and LM.

We do and while I like Byfield, he's in no way worth $13M and it would be detrimental to the franchise to do that.

 

[Gustave]

We do and while I like Byfield, he's in no way worth $13M and it would be detrimental to the franchise to do that.

I understand. I’m just imagining what would squeeze enough $$ on the LAK cap to NOT retain QB.

It’s always a « bad deal » that get’s it done on a OS though. I’m tempted I’ll be honest.

 

[Mrb1p]

Do we have enough draft capital to sign Byfield to an outrageous 13mil a year OS?
We have two sets of draft picks next season, after that I think we two 2026 2nd rd picks.

I’d go for it. Our only job for the next two seasons would be to figure out how to get a top 4 RD with mileage to isolate DR and LM.

OS byfield
Acquire Weegar for Matheson + Mailloux + 3rd

Profit

 

[The Real Timo]

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

30+ years of watching this team definitely made me mentally poor. Almost 20 years of marriage and kids made me financially poor. I am just f***ing poor. You guys need to crowd-fund me.