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

[DiglettDangles]

Matheson and Calgary/Florida's 2025 1st for Rasmus Andersson.

Then Calgary can keep Matheson or trade him next season for another 1st round.

Habs D lineup for 2024-2025:

Guhle-Andersson
Hutson-Savard
Xhekaj-Barron
Struble-Harris

Reinbacher comes in for Savard after TDL or next season.

Mailloux replaces Barron if he's shiting the bed again or when he is traded during the season.

I think Andersson is a very good player.
However his contract situation is not ideal for us.
He's got 2 high-value years left (like Matheson) but then he's UFA at 29yo, which means we may "feel the need" to extend him until he's 37 if he's made himself irreplaceable by then.

It's kind of a pipe dream but I much prefer making a play on Dobson once he realizes the Isles are going nowhere next summer - hoping he pulls a Necas. We would have multiple assets to offer, even overpay if necessary. That's one guy the Isles should have extended already, what's the hold up?

 

[Benstheman]

You're bringing a problem child into a culture that seems to be pretty harmonious. Moreover, you're bringing in a guy with mental health issues into the harshest market in the world. If he turns into another Scott Gomez, it would be absolutely toxic. Moreover, we already have CC, Demidov and Roy. Same kind of finesse, skilled game as Laine.

If we're going to trade for a forward I'd much rather it be for a player with a power game. That's something we lack up front. A different dimension there would be helpful long term. A Ryan Leonard/Tkachuk type guy.

If he is a problem child and still has mental issues, Habs won't trade for him. Don't worry, they will make their due diligence on him.

My point is if they trade for him, the risk is null only because he cost's us nothing and we don't need the cap space he will take the next two years. And if it doesn't work out, for whatever reason you might think is possible, mental health, problem child, not productive on the ice, whatever, he will be sent home pronto and it won't have any impact on the team whatsoever.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I think Andersson is a very good player.
However his contract situation is not ideal for us.
He's got 2 high-value years left (like Matheson) but then he's UFA at 29yo, which means we may "feel the need" to extend him until he's 37 if he's made himself irreplaceable by then.

It's kind of a pipe dream but I much prefer making a play on Dobson once he realizes the Isles are going nowhere next summer - hoping he pulls a Necas. We would have multiple assets to offer, even overpay if necessary. That's one guy the Isles should have extended already, what's the hold up?

NY are adding Eiserman... how he progresses will greatly affect how the Islanders see their future.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I actually watched him alot and i disagree completely. And Savard is done with Habs after next season unless it's to play as a number 6-7 guy for 2M$ a year.

Fine, agree to disagree, but making a trade like that for Andersson will go about as well as trading for Anderson did. He's exactly the kind of player rebuilding teams trade for to end up like Ottawa and Buffalo.

 

[Benstheman]

I think Andersson is a very good player.
However his contract situation is not ideal for us.
He's got 2 high-value years left (like Matheson) but then he's UFA at 29yo, which means we may "feel the need" to extend him until he's 37 if he's made himself irreplaceable by then.

It's kind of a pipe dream but I much prefer making a play on Dobson once he realizes the Isles are going nowhere next summer - hoping he pulls a Necas. We would have multiple assets to offer, even overpay if necessary. That's one guy the Isles should have extended already, what's the hold up?

I agree the best timing for such a trade would be next off season while we can extend him.

 

[Wateredgarden]

I think Andersson is a very good player.
However his contract situation is not ideal for us.
He's got 2 high-value years left (like Matheson) but then he's UFA at 29yo, which means we may "feel the need" to extend him until he's 37 if he's made himself irreplaceable by then.

It's kind of a pipe dream but I much prefer making a play on Dobson once he realizes the Isles are going nowhere next summer - hoping he pulls a Necas. We would have multiple assets to offer, even overpay if necessary. That's one guy the Isles should have extended already, what's the hold up?

That's some deep wishful thinking my friend.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

If he is a problem child and still has mental issues, Habs won't trade for him. Don't worry, they will make their due diligence on him.

My point is if they trade for him, the risk is null only because he cost's us nothing and we don't need the cap space he will take the next two years. And if it doesn't work out, for whatever reason you might think is possible, mental health, problem child, not productive on the ice, whatever, he will be sent home pronto and it won't have any impact on the team whatsoever.

I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's a horrible idea but it's not a move I'd make.

I'd be far more inclined to go after a power foward though. To me, that makes a lot of sense. If you got a second line PF then eventually Roy and Newhook could go to the 3rd with Beck. All of a sudden you have three strong lines. That third line would be more like a second and you could pretty much have two first lines with Demidov, Slaf, Dach, Nick, CC and PF.

We need to build a team that can advance in the playoffs. A bit of size/sandpaper would add a dimension we lack.

 

[Benstheman]

Fine, agree to disagree, but making a trade like that for Andersson will go about as well as trading for Anderson did. He's exactly the kind of player rebuilding teams trade for to end up like Ottawa and Buffalo.

How??

i mean you trade an older dman for a younger one.

And if you talking about that 1st pick, we all know it will be a very late 1st. Won't have an impact on our rebuild because when that prospect graduate in the NHL, if ever, we will already be out of our rebuild.

I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's a horrible idea but it's not a move I'd make.

I'd be far more inclined to go after a power foward though. To me, that makes a lot of sense. If you got a second line PF then eventually Roy and Newhook could go to the 3rd with Beck. All of a sudden you have three strong lines. That third line would be more like a second and you could pretty much have two first lines with Demidov, Slaf, Dach, Nick, CC and PF.

We need to build a team that can advance in the playoffs. A bit of size/sandpaper would add a dimension we lack.

I agree but those players are rarely disponible and they cost a fortune to acquire. It's more wishful thinking imo.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I agree but those players are rarely disponible and they cost a fortune to acquire. It's more wishful thinking imo.

I suppose, but we've got so much to trade with. A mountain of young LDs. Matheson. Two firsts...

If you're going to make a trade, then make one that's truly transformative. Apart from the negatives that Laine would bring, we already have that kind of player in the lineup.

 

[Habs10Habs]

He's a gamble we don't need to take. Think PLD.... where would we be if we'd listened to posters who wanted him?

We have tons of picks and prospects to trade with. If we're going to bolster the forwards then I'd say we go to a team that's out of the playoffs and get somebody who's a sure thing or young enough we can mold. Not only that, I'd want someone with a different style. A power forward type.

Ugh, please don't make me do that.

In fairness LG, you can't really compare PLD and Laine's situations.

1. The cost of PLD was a lot more than it would be for Laine.
2. The commitment to Laine is only two years at a high salary. Not the ridiculous contract we would have needed to sign PLD.

Since Laine is still fairly young (26), he could possibly be a part of our future. Is he a gamble? Damn right he is, if he wasn't. The cost to obtain him would be substantially more. If the deal is reasonable, I wouldn't hesistate to pull the trigger.

As for Roy, I like the kid and I see the potential in him that you do. Unfortunately I saw a lot of same similarities with RHP two seasons ago. Only to see how the fan base has turned on him, after only one season.

I see where you're coming from. But I'm old school. If Roy is supposed to be in our top 6. Let him earn it. It's not going to hurt his development playing in our top 9. While getting a chance here and there to play in our top 6, due to injuries.

Oh and as for using our draft picks to obtain a "sure thing" or a young player that we can mold. I'd be curious to see who you're thinking of. To see how well they'd match up to what Laine could potentially bring us.

 

[le_sean]

Can Laine just get traded elsewhere so people can stop talking about this heavily flawed player as if he’s anything near the 2nd overall talent he was touted to be.

 

[Captain Mountain]

How??

i mean you trade an older dman for a younger one.

And if you talking about that 1st pick, we all know it will be a very late 1st. Won't have an impact on our rebuild because when that prospect graduate in the NHL, if ever, we will already be out of our rebuild.


I agree but those players are rarely disponible and they cost a fortune to acquire. It's more wishful thinking imo.

-Age doesn't matter here, because 27 still doesn't fit Montreal's window, especially at the cost Andersson would command on a new contract. The biggest trap rebuilding teams fall into is when they cut corners and pay players for what they have done to fill holes, when they don't even know what they have or what they actually need.

-And we don't know it will be a late first, and even if its, a late first can still have good value. And I'm sorry, but the idea that a prospect taken in 2025 wont "have an impact on our rebuild because when that prospect graduate in the NHL, if ever, we will already be out of our rebuild", misses the point that competitive teams need picks/prospects too, especially in a cap era.

I don't like the idea of trading for Andersson because I think he is, at best, a #3 on a playoff team and I think Montreal will have that on RD. I'd rather aim higher or lower, but I am not interested in Bergevin-type anything can happen bets on good but not great, inconsistent veterans unless the cost makes sense (a la Laine).

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Ugh, please don't make me do that.

In fairness LG, you can't really compare PLD and Laine's situations.

1. The cost of PLD was a lot more than it would be for Laine.
2. The commitment to Laine is only two years at a high salary. Not the ridiculous contract we would have needed to sign PLD.

Since Laine is still fairly young (26), he could possibly be a part of our future. Is he a gamble? Damn right he is, if he wasn't. The cost to obtain him would be substantially more. If the deal is reasonable, I wouldn't hesistate to pull the trigger.

As for Roy, I like the kid and I see the potential in him that you do. Unfortunately I saw a lot of same similarities with RHP two seasons ago. Only to see how the fan base has turned on him, after only one season.

I see where you're coming from. But I'm old school. If Roy is supposed to be in our top 6. Let him earn it. It's not going to hurt his development playing in our top 9. While getting a chance here and there to play in our top 6, due to injuries.

Oh and as for using our draft picks to obtain a "sure thing" or a young player that we can mold. I'd be curious to see who you're thinking of. To see how well they'd match up to what Laine could potentially bring us.

Fair enough. You're right, it's not the same situation.

I'm more thinking along the lines of how toxic it would've been here if we'd had gotten him. The crowd would go dark very, very quickly and I think the same thing would happen to Laine. I don't see it as a 'no risk' move.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

-Age doesn't matter here, because 27 still doesn't fit Montreal's window, especially at the cost Andersson would command on a new contract. The biggest trap rebuilding teams fall into is when they cut corners and pay players for what they have done to fill holes, when they don't even know what they have or what they actually need.

-And we don't know it will be a late first, and even if its, a late first can still have good value. And I'm sorry, but the idea that a prospect taken in 2025 wont "have an impact on our rebuild because when that prospect graduate in the NHL, if ever, we will already be out of our rebuild", misses the point that competitive teams need picks/prospects too, especially in a cap era.

I don't like the idea of trading for Andersson because I think he is, at best, a #3 on a playoff team and I think Montreal already has that on RD. I'd rather aim higher or lower, but I am not interested in Bergevin-type anything can happen bests on good but not great inconsistent veterans unless the cost makes sense (a la Laine).

To add to your post I believe Hughes will keep trying to add high draft picks in future years when possible - moving vets that don't fit the time line. IMO he is trying to build a team that can contend for a long period of time.

 

[ReHabs]

You say that I'm expecting a 'flip of a switch' when I very clearly have told you this will take time.

Improve the roster? Sure. If there's a trade out there that does that long term? Nobody is opposed. Why would they be?

Saying we NEED to do it and that our top six sucks? No.

It takes time... but you won't accept that the time it takes implies incremental progress. It's not just time for time's sake. You still act like losing -> winning with no in-between. That's a flip the switch. Maybe you should look at TOR, BUF, ARI, OTT, etc. Teams don't go from zero playoff experience to winning playoff series at the flip of a switch.

You have done nothing of the kind.

I did a quick survery about a week ago; just looked for it seems like it was deleted. It showed recent Cup winners and finalists had their 6th highest scoring forward be a whole lot better than Roy's 32pts/season -- or if they did have a 39pt-season (the 6th best forward of FLA) they had (1) outrageously good goaltending in the playoffs to make up for the spread, (2) acquired scoring talent at the deadline, and (3) and super forwards at the high-end (PPG++).

Do me a favour and look up the 5th and 6th highest scoring forward of recent Cup winners and finalists.

You are taking a good point made by DAChampion and extrapolating it out of context. That's our lack of depth outside the top six. And in the event of an injury we'd have to rely on a player like Gallagher... okay, that's true. For the moment we don't have the offensive depth that we would like to have. But that will be shortly rectified by Demidov and others on the way.

It's unlikely and a happy surprise if Demidov comes over in 2024. We have no one coming this season and -- once again -- to experience incremental progress the roster should be improved. Organic growth only goes so far when you have two injury prone players in the top6 and one 4th round pick rookie who didn't light the world on fire in his first taste. It's just not enough.

Our top six is a completely different question. I don't see how anyone can argue that Newhook and Dach aren't solid secondary scorers. They're young, coming into their prime and should be just fine in that role. Roy is a different story but I think it makes sense to play him there for development purposes. If we bring someone else in, it knocks Roy to the third. Personally, I'd rather him higher up because I think he'll benefit from playing with better players.

I'll ask you again: What are your point projections for Dach, Newhook and Roy?

Dach only scored on the first line for the record.. You're projecting projections. No interesting in reading tea leaves, personally.

That may happen anyway. Might as well see what we've got.

If we need a B12 shot midway through the year, we can look at making a move then. But there's no hurry to do it now.

If we really want to make the playoffs this year, then we should get a vet defenseman on the right side. Trade Matheson for him. That moves Guhle back to the left and we'd be a much, much better team. I'd prefer we grow that group orgainically as well but if it's a quick fix move, then do it on the D.

So you prefer to have to acquire a player out of desperation mid-season? No, you clearly don't. Not one of your argument is congruent with someone who wants to actually escape the tank orbit. "Organic growth" is the same as "whatever happens, happens, there's no rush". I think there is a rush to improve and good teams try to improve and find an edge *every single year*.

You can't accrue and bank cap space, there's no harm in trying to add a short term roster upgrade in the absence of cap committment and Kent Hughes literally said so and tried to do that with Marchessault.

You're bringing a problem child into a culture that seems to be pretty harmonious. Moreover, you're bringing in a guy with mental health issues into the harshest market in the world. Then there are the salary concerns. And if he turns into another Scott Gomez, it would be absolutely toxic.

Moreover, we already have CC, Demidov and Roy. Same kind of finesse, skilled game as Laine.

If we're going to trade for a forward I'd much rather it be for a player with a power game. That's something we lack up front. A different dimension there would be helpful long term. A Ryan Leonard/Tkachuk/Knies type guy.

Bringing up PLD -- who would've cost a lot of assets and an 8 year commitment -- exposes your bias. Just be forthcoming. You had the same arguments against acquiring McGroarty -- a prospect with a power game and playoff style intangibles.

You just don't want to acquire anyone. That's fine, leave it for the rest of us talk about it.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

As for Roy, I like the kid and I see the potential in him that you do. Unfortunately I saw a lot of same similarities with RHP two seasons ago. Only to see how the fan base has turned on him, after only one season.

I see where you're coming from. But I'm old school. If Roy is supposed to be in our top 6. Let him earn it. It's not going to hurt his development playing in our top 9. While getting a chance here and there to play in our top 6, due to injuries.

Oh and as for using our draft picks to obtain a "sure thing" or a young player that we can mold. I'd be curious to see who you're thinking of. To see how well they'd match up to what Laine could potentially bring us.

On the Roy side, I get the 'earn' it thoughts. But look at what happens to a player's development when he plays with better players. Their play improves - sometimes drastically.

I'm of the mindset that you give the player every chance to succeed. If they don't you re-evaluate. But I don't see how putting Roy with say... Anderson and Dvorak is going to do anything but slow his growth.

 

[Benstheman]

-Age doesn't matter here, because 27 still doesn't fit Montreal's window, especially at the cost Andersson would command on a new contract. The biggest trap rebuilding teams fall into is when they cut corners and pay players for what they have done to fill holes, when they don't even know what they have or what they actually need.

-And we don't know it will be a late first, and even if its, a late first can still have good value. And I'm sorry, but the idea that a prospect taken in 2025 wont "have an impact on our rebuild because when that prospect graduate in the NHL, if ever, we will already be out of our rebuild", misses the point that competitive teams need picks/prospects too, especially in a cap era.

I don't like the idea of trading for Andersson because I think he is, at best, a #3 on a playoff team and I think Montreal already has that on RD. I'd rather aim higher or lower, but I am not interested in Bergevin-type anything can happen bests on good but not great inconsistent veterans unless the cost makes sense (a la Laine).

I disagree with almost everything you said. But that's ok. You have your opinion on the player and that's it.

 

[ReHabs]

If you're going to make a trade, then make one that's truly transformative.

You want organic growth (ie do nothing) but also a transformative trade. There's no other ways to improve a roster or add talent?

Apart from the negatives that Laine would bring, we already have that kind of player in the lineup.

We have too many 6'5" goal-scoring wingers, yeah.

 

[Benstheman]

To add to your post I believe Hughes will keep trying to add high draft picks in future years when possible - moving vets that don't fit the time line. IMO he is trying to build a team that can contend for a long period of time.

Like who?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It takes time... but you won't accept that the time it takes implies incremental progress. It's not just time for time's sake. You still act like losing -> winning with no in-between. That's a flip the switch. Maybe you should look at TOR, BUF, ARI, OTT, etc. Teams don't go from zero playoff experience to winning playoff series at the flip of a switch.

We are one of the youngest teams in the league. Half the guys who will be on this club when we (hopefully) become contenders aren't even in the lineup yet.

You have not shown any ability to be patient. And it's blown up in your face. I think it will blow up in your face again.

I did a quick survery about a week ago; just looked for it seems like it was deleted. It showed recent Cup winners and finalists had their 6th highest scoring forward be a whole lot better than Roy's 32pts/season -- or if they did have a 39pt-season (the 6th best forward of FLA) they had (1) outrageously good goaltending in the playoffs to make up for the spread, (2) acquired scoring talent at the deadline, and (3) and super forwards at the high-end (PPG++).

Are you for real?

You looked up cup winners top six... compared it to Roy's ROOKIE year and are making the point that he's not top six worthy? Am I understanding this correctly?

This is almost as insane as when you were prognosticating off Slaf when he'd played something like 40 games.

Roy has a strong resume behind him. Won a scoring title in the minors. Did well in the AHL and had a respectable rookie year. Yes, he's a wildcard but again it's more about development with him.

Do me a favour and look up the 5th and 6th highest scoring forward of recent Cup winners and finalists.

Do me a favour and make your own case. If you have an argument to make and want to show stats, then show them.

NOBODY is suggesting that our top six is contender worthy this year. Slaf and Roy are years away from their prime and Demidov isn't even in the league yet.

We don't have a cup contending top six right now? Okay. That doesn't mean that it's 'awful' or it sucks.

How do you not understand the difference between this? How do you not understand that those guys will all be much better three years from now?

It's unlikely and a happy surprise if Demidov comes over in 2024. We have no one coming this season and -- once again -- to experience incremental progress the roster should be improved. Organic growth only goes so far when you have two injury prone players in the top6 and one 4th round pick rookie who didn't light the world on fire in his first taste. It's just not enough.

Not enough for what? A cup?

No kidding. Nobody's expecting the playoffs, let alone a cup this year.

Dach only scored on the first line for the record.. You're projecting projections. No interesting in reading tea leaves, personally.

So you prefer to have to acquire a player out of desperation mid-season? No, you clearly don't. Not one of your argument is congruent with someone who wants to actually escape the tank orbit. "Organic growth" is the same as "whatever happens, happens, there's no rush". I think there is a rush to improve and good teams try to improve and find an edge *every single year*.

Bringing up PLD -- who would've cost a lot of assets and an 8 year commitment -- exposes your bias. Just be forthcoming. You had the same arguments against acquiring McGroarty. You just don't want to acquire anyone. That's fine, leave it for the rest of us talk about it.

I'll ask you a third time.

What do you project points wise for each of Dach, Roy and Newhook.

I'm not asking you what a cup winning top six looks like. I'm not asking you for anything that requires any kind of hard work. This is not a gotcha question.

You've made the argument that our top six is 'awful.' Okay, what do you project for those players, assuming they're healthy?

 

[Benstheman]

On the Roy side, I get the 'earn' it thoughts. But look at what happens to a player's development when he plays with better players. Their play improves - sometimes drastically.

I'm of the mindset that you give the player every chance to succeed. If they don't you re-evaluate. But I don't see how putting Roy with say... Anderson and Dvorak is going to do anything but slow his growth.

I think Roy is a really talented and intelligent guy. He needs to play with good players. He is already a good two-way player. The only knock on him i would say is consistency and effort. And playing him with Anderson and Dvorak would certainly not help him in that manner.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You want organic growth (ie do nothing) but also a transformative trade. There's no other ways to improve a roster or add talent?

Adding talent and going for short cuts are two different things.

We have too many 6'5" goal-scoring wingers, yeah.

Laine doesn't use his size. Him being 6'5 is great. Him not using that size isn't.

I wish him all the best somewhere else.

 

[Habs10Habs]

Fair enough. You're right, it's not the same situation.

I'm more thinking along the lines of how toxic it would've been here if we'd had gotten him. The crowd would go dark very, very quickly and I think the same thing would happen to Laine. I don't see it as a 'no risk' move.

Lol I pray atleast once a day because I'm so grateful we didn't get PLD.

It's possible that obtaining Laine could blow up in our faces. I just feel confident enough in our coaching staff and management group. That they could provide Laine with all he needs to succeed. It's a gamble and definitely not a "no risk" move. IMO we have the assets, we have the cap space. If he crashes, we hold salary and dump him at the trade deadline. If he does well, HuGo looks like a mofo genius.

 

[Colezuki]

Ideally if we're cup contending Roy is on the 3rd line, much like toffoli in LA during his time there

 

[sampollock]

Can Laine just get traded elsewhere so people can stop talking about this heavily flawed player as if he’s anything near the 2nd overall talent he was touted to be.

nope he needs a chance with the habs.

but on a lighter topic, some still talking about PLD