Well Colorado dumped Rantanen because they didn't think they could afford him and re sign Makar.
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #89: 2024-2025 season part II
- Thread starter MarkovsKnee
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
BigDaddyLurch
Exiled from Reality
...well, it's a little more nuanced than that; they didn't want to follow the Leaf model and have 3 players eating up that much of the Cap as they felt it could harm them in filling out the team in other areas...
Why? Another small offensive LHD is not what this team needs.
Exactly. With Mackinnon already making big money they didn't want to have 3 players making big money. And they have Landeskog making 7 mil for years unless he has to retire.
HuGort
Registered User
Gaylord Q Tinkledink
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2018
- 35,570
- 39,496
Well you wouldn't get like for Evans anyways anyways, but he's a prospect with value you can trade when the time is right to go for when young talent is available.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
No doubt in my mind that Gorton/Hughes will wait to see all the offers they get for Evans before they extend him. Why not? You never know how aggressive some GM's get. Those contenders are all looking to add an edge for their run.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
What would you say if we traded Evans for a late 1st and ended up keeping Dvorak as the stop gap at center? We also extend Armia
Dvorak and Beck are the bottom 2C's and someone like Newhook is with Beck or Kapanen as center insurance? We end up having two bottom lines that are both used equally? Say what you want to say about that Anderson / Dvorak / Gallagher line but they have been very good together.
Slaf / Suzuki / Caufield
Laine / Dach / Demidov
Anderson / Dvorak / Gallagher
Newhook / XXXX / Armia
Beck or Kapanen fight for the last center spot. Roy and others are there in case of injuries.
Dvorak and Beck are the bottom 2C's and someone like Newhook is with Beck or Kapanen as center insurance? We end up having two bottom lines that are both used equally? Say what you want to say about that Anderson / Dvorak / Gallagher line but they have been very good together.
Slaf / Suzuki / Caufield
Laine / Dach / Demidov
Anderson / Dvorak / Gallagher
Newhook / XXXX / Armia
Beck or Kapanen fight for the last center spot. Roy and others are there in case of injuries.
Benstheman
Registered User
- Nov 20, 2014
- 7,678
- 4,053
If Evans gets moved out, I don't bother keeping Dvorak for next season. Moving on further from the bad part of the Bergevin era (panic acquisition we overpaid for once the offer for KK wasn't matched) would be more beneficial, IMO, regardless of how honest Dvorak's play may have been this season (definitely nothing more than structural, at best)
There,s two years left on Newhook's contract at a 2.9M Cap hit per season. I'm admittedly not a fan of Newhook, but that term and that Cap hit are perfect for Newhook being used as a stop gap C on a 3rd line.
Besides, although he sucks in the F/O circle and defensively, Newhook is a better player, offensively, when he has more room on the ice as a C to exploit his speed.
Beck is suited to play a 4th line role at C because of his F/O skills, his speed and his hockey sense, even if that doesn't exploit his offensive upside as much as would playing the 3rd line C position.
Kapanen is better suited for 3C duties because of the clear offensive upside from his play in Europe this season, but, as a 6'2" C with some weight on his frame -- and the possibility to add some more -- to go along with his hockey sense and defensive awareness, he could convert himself for shutdown duties on a 4th line.
If Carbonneau, a once 60 and 70 goal scorer in Juniors could use his sense of anticipation to become a Selke level forward, another more offensive C could od as such with the right motivation.
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 30,533
- 22,168
A reasonable outcome.
The Habs will not be able to replace both of Evans and Dvorak next year.
Sure they can, if Newhook plays 3C and a rookie plays 4C. Defensively, in the F/O circle and physically, Newhook might not be as good as Dvorak, but he would be better offensively, for sure, as demonstrated last season when he played C and had flashes of a 50-point forward over a full season..
Gaylord Q Tinkledink
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2018
- 35,570
- 39,496
You're not moving Anderson at the deadline.
With Guhle healthy, you still don't "go for it" and management seems to be in agreement with that thought process.
You sell...
I know I'm on the outside, but you if you're not getting the offers you want for Savard, you say Carrier is available at 50% retained for the right deal, or listen if people come calling for him.
Deebs
Take my strong advice, always think twice
- Feb 5, 2014
- 17,637
- 14,829
Imo, we would be stupid to trade Carrier. An excellent skating, Right shot D that can move the puck and be physical.....yeah, let's get rid of him. He's done nothing but played well for us.
Last edited:
sampollock
Registered User
eklund the clown
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2010
- 2,374
- 2,717
Get rid of Savard, Dvorak ,and Armia ,Gallagher ,Anderson if the price is right .I would even consider Laine traded for the right price.
Benstheman
Registered User
- Nov 20, 2014
- 7,678
- 4,053
It would be very good if the team plays meaningful games , as the season goes on, even if we dont make the post season The team knows its a rebuild but at this point we dont need the loser mentality settling in. At the same time, we see what happens, like with Ottawa, if the GM is wrong about where the team is and goes for it. So if we are still within striking distance of a playoff spot that means not trading UFA players for 3rd or 4th round picks, we keep the players for the playoff push. Now if we arent signing Evans and we can get a late 1st for him, trade him. We dont go out and give up a 1st for a short term D fix because Guhle is out.
So we dont go for it , but we dont throw in the towel.
So we dont go for it , but we dont throw in the towel.
Captain Mountain
Formerly Captain Wolverine
- Jun 6, 2010
- 21,244
- 15,458
sampollock
Registered User
I wonder some times if poster join and then do nothing but try to start fires, if they are really CH fans or just on to cause issues?
lol
lol
That is exactly what winning the cup will do.
They know what it takes and having a balanced lineup is a huge challenge to maintain.
Benstheman
Registered User
- Nov 20, 2014
- 7,678
- 4,053
Gallagher is there as a cap dump for the next 2 years. I would have them retaining 2 M$ per but not sure it's reasonable for 5 years.
Captain Mountain
Formerly Captain Wolverine
- Jun 6, 2010
- 21,244
- 15,458
Its more reasonable than acquiring Seth Jones long term in his 30s. It wouldn't be disastrous with a rising cap, but Jones has one of the worst contracts in the NHL and he's likely to get worse over the next 5 seasons. Gallagher as a cap dump doesn't bridge the gap, especially since it means Montreal has more cap space when its unlikely they will be a contender and less when they could be a contender. Montreal would be better off keeping Gallagher for retention that works for them.
And while he's big and a right shot, he's not much better defensively than a guy like Matheson and doesn't have his wheels.
