Toggle sidebar

HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #91: 2025 Trade Deadline edition

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Miller Time said:
I don't think roster and asset management works the way you think it does. "Planning" to re-sign a player doesn't mean sign them at any cost (except I suppose in the rarest of cases when talking about generational talent).

And I don't think you understand what their approach is, despite how many times they've publicly stated it....

All of the following can be true at the same time
- they want to re-sign Evans
- they want to keep the roster while/competitive to support the push for a playoff spot
- they have set a minimum bar to be met to consider trading Evans

And all 3 are very much consistent with their stated approach.

While I fully get that one might disagree with the approach, not sure why this is hard to grasp?


It's been almost exactly 3 years. We have the best U25 and best non-nhl prospect group this organization has seen in decades and we are in a great place cap-wise to both retain our internal talent and be aggressive over the next 2-4 years in targetting high cap assets.

Is it really that hard to understand that the roster and asset decisions today look different than the ones in year 1 when he inherited BargainBin's mess ?


Last 4 games, lol wut?

Hughes has been saying the same thing since last summer... When a bunch of posters were crying because he didn't improve the roster as much as the Predators, Blackhawks, RedWings, Utah etc.

The approach is about building from the inside out, while being patient and opportunistic with external additions. Playoffs is the goal this year, but not in an "all-in" capacity. That's exactly what we've seen so far (Laine, Carrier, Dobes), and since the group has done it's part to stay within realistic striking distance of a PO spot, he's in no rush to be a "seller" because he knows that there is a cost internally to do so.

It's not an exact science. There will be decisions in hindsight that look bad, and others that look great. Overall, the outcomes both on ice (youngest roster in the league punching above its weight) and in organizational strength, have been nothing short of excellent.

Worst case, we keep all 4 vet UFAs, miss the playoffs on the last day, pick 9* in the first 4 rounds (or trade up), and our young core hits the summer hungry, motivated and feeling confident that the organization is behind them. I can live with that.
Click to expand...
I have no idea where I said that if they have the intention of signing Evans, they have to sign him no matter the cost. No idea where I said that. I said...if you want to sign him and the deal makes sense, if you do it is because you think the guy will help you in the future. If you don't and the guy might give you a great return, you have to be open to it.

The funny part is that in the same response, you give some trade proposals.....so in essence...if he'd do what you said, you'd be fine with it? That then means getting rid of Armia and Savard for no real immediate or a clear downgrade which would clearly put an end to our playoff push. And you also add picks....so....you are open to actually what I've been talking about? But i'm the one who doesn'T understand the plan? Hein?

As far as my comment about the last 4 games.....well your point 2 of your Evans explanation says it all....tell me just before the 4-nations tournament where we where pathetic, tell me that they thought of a push for a playoff spot. NOW we think that. NOW it makes sense. After the 4 nations...but before...NOBODY talked about playoff push...

Now, since it's not all black and white, sure....you can make hockey moves too. You don't have to ship away Armia-Dvorak-Savard and Evans for 2 2nd rounders, 1 3rd and 1 4th. That's not what I want too. You could get Carrier's type of players. You could get Heineman's type of players. You talk about Dumba? Fine with me maybe. But for me it will always be about asset management. I just hate losing players for nothing. Some will say it's not nothing to keep Armia, Dvorak Evans and Savard and make the kids live a playoff push....fine. Yet, for me, it's also possible to make deals, maximize asset management AND still push for the playoffs in the process.
 
Galaxydoggystyle said:
I disagree If Hage is the one we need to add to trade to get us a 2nd line center I would do it. Hage is not a sure thing and being a Hab fan growing up doesnt do jack for us. We don't need "stories" we need actual on ice talent so we aren't wasting away our young players on 8 year deals only to get a 2nd line center halfway through or even worse before those contracts end. We need to fill the 2nd line center and RD holes ASAP and not wait on prospects.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, let's pull the trigger right now. Crosby or Pettersson or another NAME BRAND player. Proven 2C or better needed now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garry Valk and Galaxydoggystyle
Whitesnake said:
I have no idea where I said that if they have the intention of signing Evans, they have to sign him no matter the cost. No idea where I said that. I said...if you want to sign him and the deal makes sense, if you do it is because you think the guy will help you in the future. If you don't and the guy might give you a great return, you have to be open to it.
Click to expand...
Is a GM setting the minimum asking price for a player not a very indication that he is "open to it"?

I admit, your posts are hard to follow as they seem to contradict themselves often.

Whitesnake said:
The funny part is that in the same response, you give some trade proposals.....so in essence...if he'd do what you said, you'd be fine with it? That then means getting rid of Armia and Savard for no real immediate or a clear downgrade which would clearly put an end to our playoff push. And you also add picks....so....you are open to actually what I've been talking about? But i'm the one who doesn'T understand the plan? Hein?
Click to expand...
Sorry it's confusing to you.

I don't think I can explain it any better and again, KH & Hugo have spelled it out very clearly.

Whitesnake said:
As far as my comment about the last 4 games.....well your point 2 of your Evans explanation says it all....tell me just before the 4-nations tournament where we where pathetic, tell me that they thought of a push for a playoff spot. NOW we think that. NOW it makes sense. After the 4 nations...but before...NOBODY talked about playoff push...
Click to expand...
Were you not following the team last summer?
How about in the fall?
Or in January?

Playoffs have been talked about regularly and with consistent narrative. It's very simple, no idea why you're so confused.

Whitesnake said:
Now, since it's not all black and white, sure....you can make hockey moves too. You don't have to ship away Armia-Dvorak-Savard and Evans for 2 2nd rounders, 1 3rd and 1 4th. That's not what I want too. You could get Carrier's type of players. You could get Heineman's type of players. You talk about Dumba? Fine with me maybe. But for me it will always be about asset management. I just hate losing players for nothing. Some will say it's not nothing to keep Armia, Dvorak Evans and Savard and make the kids live a playoff push....fine. Yet, for me, it's also possible to make deals, maximize asset management AND still push for the playoffs in the process.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it would seem that's what KH is doing.
He's not "selling" the same way he did 3 years ago.
He wasn't about to make an early move to get a pick from a quality vet at the risk of weakening the team the way he did last year with Monahan.

He's walking a tight rope and, by all indications, comfortable with the risk of keeping UFAs even if we aren't a playoff lock.

Simple. Consistent. Aligned with the overall strategy and big picture goal.
 
Miller Time said:
Is a GM setting the minimum asking price for a player not a very indication that he is "open to it"?

I admit, your posts are hard to follow as they seem to contradict themselves often.


Sorry it's confusing to you.

I don't think I can explain it any better and again, KH & Hugo have spelled it out very clearly.


Were you not following the team last summer?
How about in the fall?
Or in January?

Playoffs have been talked about regularly and with consistent narrative. It's very simple, no idea why you're so confused.



Yes, and it would seem that's what KH is doing.
He's not "selling" the same way he did 3 years ago.
He wasn't about to make an early move to get a pick from a quality vet at the risk of weakening the team the way he did last year with Monahan.

He's walking a tight rope and, by all indications, comfortable with the risk of keeping UFAs even if we aren't a playoff lock.

Simple. Consistent. Aligned with the overall strategy and big picture goal.
Click to expand...
Would love for you to point out 1 example of contradiction. Just one. As far as not doing it this year well it helps when you actually don't have the same quality vet as he had with Monahan. He would not have been able to do it simply because we had no UFA vet to trade with the same quality.

Being in the mix was talked about. Why? Simple actually...because the team is getting better as time passes by. Recognizing also the quality or not quality of the other teams of the conference. Everybody knew we wouldn't suck San Jose style with or without Evans or Armia. So being in the mix was a way to tell the fans that we were not rebuilding, that we would compete. And we do.

But tell me this....we'd be 10 points from a playoff spot....would doing nothing still makes sense? that's my only point about the recency bias of the after 4 nations.

by the way.....I agree with a poster called Miller Time who said this in January of this year...

Speculation: Post in thread 'Most beneficial for this team vs your preference: Run for a WC spot, or a high pick?'

Adding high quality assets is my personal preference, but successfully battling for a playoff spot would be the best for this young core.

Worst case scenario would be to just miss the playoffs, get nothing for our UFAs & end up with the worst pick of the non playoff teams...
  • Like

As far as personal preference and worst case scenario.....And Yes i ALSO don't disagree with the same poster who said that battling for a playoff spot is also great for our kids. All this aren't contradictions as there are various degrees of bad and great for every scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdk
Whalers Fan said:
In what world was acquiring Dach and Newhook trying to "speed up the process"? Those two players were of the proper age and had the draft pedigree to fit well within the rebuild had they worked out. Dach's been a disappointment, and Newhook has just only performed at a level that would be expected based on the price the Habs paid (and not where he was drafted), but that in no way means they were acquired to speed up the rebuild.
Click to expand...
We traded first round draft picks, some of them prime, in those draft years to acquire two players who were already partially-developed and closer in age to those whom we believed would be the core in Suzuki and Caufield, and who would reach their prime in two years or so, if they followed a traditional develop curve, rather than five or six.

That's the very definition of trying - and failing miserably - at speeding up the rebuild.

What are you even talking about?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: ReHabs, Boss Man Hughes and Habitant#1
Whitesnake said:
Would love for you to point out 1 example of contradiction. Just one. As far as not doing it this year well it helps when you actually don't have the same quality vet as he had with Monahan. He would not have been able to do it simply because we had no UFA vet to trade with the same quality.
Click to expand...
Felt like I did already?

Re. Monahan
Not sure i agree that it helps...
Whitesnake said:
Being in the mix was talked about. Why? Simple actually...because the team is getting better as time passes by. Recognizing also the quality or not quality of the other teams of the conference. Everybody knew we wouldn't suck San Jose style with or without Evans or Armia.
Click to expand...
No, most around here thought we'd be bottom 5 this year, as did the media predictions iirc
Whitesnake said:
So being in the mix was a way to tell the fans that we were not rebuilding, that we would compete. And we do.
Click to expand...
Yup.
Whitesnake said:
But tell me this....we'd be 10 points from a playoff spot....would doing nothing still makes sense? that's my only point about the recency bias of the after 4 nations.
Click to expand...
The further out of it, the more likely a trade, the closer we are, the less. Not sure why this is problematic?

If we hadn't gone on a tear from Mid Nov to early Feb, we'd have likely already moved at least 1 if not more of those 4.

Whitesnake said:
by the way.....I agree with a poster called Miller Time who said this in January of this year...

Speculation: Post in thread 'Most beneficial for this team vs your preference: Run for a WC spot, or a high pick?'

Adding high quality assets is my personal preference, but successfully battling for a playoff spot would be the best for this young core.

Worst case scenario would be to just miss the playoffs, get nothing for our UFAs & end up with the worst pick of the non playoff teams...
  • Like

As far as personal preference and worst case scenario.....And Yes i ALSO don't disagree with the same poster who said that battling for a playoff spot is also great for our kids. All this aren't contradictions as there are various degrees of bad and great for every scscenario.
Click to expand...

agree to agree here ;)
 
1 pt out of a playoff spot

If Hughes trade Evans and Armia, the team will be pissed

This is what Hughes said last summer

«We are at a point where we are, in a way, coming out of a phase where the focus was really on accumulating assets for the future and rebuilding this team.

As we are somewhat coming out of this phase, we are reaching a point where maybe a player will have an expiring contract, and we won't trade him (at the trade deadline or otherwise) because he helps us win hockey games, even though we could trade him for future assets.»

- Kent Hughes

i think we end up keeping our upcoming UFAs
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinodebino, Riggins, SwiftyHab and 1 other person
red devil said:
What's the point in trading him for another 4th round pick because I can't see him getting a 1st or 2nd
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's not worth it. We only have 6 defenceman as well in MTL with Guhle injury.

I would keep Savard and Dvorak instead of gettin 3rd or 4th round pick.

Evans and Armia should be on sale imo if it's a 1st round pick.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bleuetbio
Kudo Shinichi said:
1 pt out of a playoff spot

If Hughes trade Evans and Armia, the team will be pissed

This is what Hughes said last summer

«We are at a point where we are, in a way, coming out of a phase where the focus was really on accumulating assets for the future and rebuilding this team.

As we are somewhat coming out of this phase, we are reaching a point where maybe a player will have an expiring contract, and we won't trade him (at the trade deadline or otherwise) because he helps us win hockey games, even though we could trade him for future assets.»

- Kent Hughes

i think we end up keeping our upcoming UFAs
Click to expand...
It would be seen as a slap in the face to the team for sure.

We can sit up here on the forum with the bird's eye view of "they're not a playoff team anyway, still need to rebuild, get what they can, asset management, blah blah.."

These guys don't see that and they shouldn't have to. They're in the heat of it battling. They want to take the next step, whether it's realistic anything happens after that or not.

Honestly I'm quite inclined to agree unless an offer for Evans blows you away. Trading him away for a 2nd? Who will play C for the rest of the year? Newhook? Will they give Beck more than 3 minutes? I doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red devil and VirginiaMtlExpat
Kudo Shinichi said:
1 pt out of a playoff spot

If Hughes trade Evans and Armia, the team will be pissed

This is what Hughes said last summer

«We are at a point where we are, in a way, coming out of a phase where the focus was really on accumulating assets for the future and rebuilding this team.

As we are somewhat coming out of this phase, we are reaching a point where maybe a player will have an expiring contract, and we won't trade him (at the trade deadline or otherwise) because he helps us win hockey games, even though we could trade him for future assets.»

- Kent Hughes

i think we end up keeping our upcoming UFAs
Click to expand...
Marinaro and Lapierre talking about some players that may be available:

Jared McCann, Rangers will move players...

I'd move Armia and Evans for a 1st if we could turn around and package it for McCann, or a player with more offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boss Man Hughes
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom