HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #93: Y'all got any more of those 2nd line centers out there?

[Archijerej]

Dach had a much higher ceiling than Romanov. This is not fanboyism, it's realism. Please try realism, it's useful.

Nobody dreamed of Romanov getting drafted in the top 10, never mind 3OA.

In his D+1, Dach was the 5th best F for Chicago in the playoffs, with 6 points in 9 playoff games (better than Demidov, who is even a few months older!). In Romanov's D+3, he was healthy scratched in 18 of the Habs' 22 playoff games, behind really low performance players like Kulak, Gustafsson, and Merrill (!)

In Romanov's D+4. he was outproduced by Arber Xhekaj at the same age, and similar production to Jayden Struble. In Dach's D+4, he produced like a 2C and the consensus was that he could possibly challenge Suzuki for 1C soon. I invite you to go back and read the posts on this board as well as articles by multiple NHL analysts outside of Montreal.

Dach's knee injuries do not erase his ceiling at the time of the trade.

Pretty much this.

I wasn't a fan of the Newhook trade, although he grew on me in his first season, but I can't bring myself to be critical of the Dach trade.

It was precisely the kind of trade an active GM should be doing in order to build their roster and put an end to our decades long curse of not having two actual top 6 centers in our lineup.

Yes, Dach had question marks even before the knee injuries. A 21-years-old big, right handed, 3OA center would never had hit the market if he didn't have those question marks. It was a good idea that just didn't pan out.

Also, I was never a fan of Romanov.

 

[Miller Time]

.

No it’s not. 5-5.5 for 5 years while the cap is going up for a 32 years old RHD that can play 20+ minutes a game is not terrible. Ceci is a need.
Comparable are Tanev, Pesce, Roy, Manson and DeMelo.

It is terrible for a player that was mediocre value at 3.25M in the current cap environment & for whom there is no reason to expect any net positive performance increase over the large term you'd offer him.

Easy pass, doubt KH would make such a poor signing.

 

[CzarDemidov]

Pretty much this.

I wasn't a fan of the Newhook trade, although he grew on me in his first season, but I can't bring myself to be critical of the Dach trade.

It was precisely the kind of trade an active GM should be doing in order to build their roster and put an end to our decades long curse of not having two actual top 6 centers in our lineup.

Yes, Dach had question marks even before the knee injuries. A 21-years-old big, right handed, 3OA center would never had hit the market if he didn't have those question marks. It was a good idea that just didn't pan out.

Also, I was never a fan of Romanov.

Newhook trade was bad from the moment it was conceived and how it has played out has only underlined this.

Dach trade is much more acceptable but the doubts about Dach's rehab/recovery after his wrist injury seem more acute now that they've repeated again. Maybe they didn't do their homework on him and his character.

 

[BaseballCoach]

A 21-years-old big, right handed, 3OA center would never had hit the market if he didn't have those question marks. It was a good idea that just didn't pan out.

Same club that traded Brandon Hagel cheap and yet paid a draft pick during a rebuild for the UFA rights for a few days for an overpaid Vet!!

 

[Colezuki]

Newhook trade was bad from the moment it was conceived and how it has played out has only underlined this.

Dach trade is much more acceptable but the doubts about Dach's rehab/recovery after his wrist injury seem more acute now that they've repeated again. Maybe they didn't do their homework on him and his character.

Except the wrist was never the injury again, it was the Knees both times

 

[CzarDemidov]

Except the wrist was never the injury again, it was the Knees both times

Read my comment again.

 

[CzarDemidov]

Same club that traded Brandon Hagel cheap and yet paid a draft pick during a rebuild for the UFA rights for a few days for an overpaid Vet!!

No one thought Hagel was too cheap when he was traded. In fact, TBL was mocked for going "cheap" to acquire a player who wasn't that impressive.

 

[Sorinth]

Yes, it's funny how our perception of picks changes based on whether we acquire them, or squander them on useless trades.

I would add our trust in the management as another factor that transforms the value of picks. We didn't like Bergevin, so we gave him shit for years when he traded two 2nds for Andrew Shaw. We trust Hugo, so we can't even bring ourselves to admit that the Newhook trade is not looking too hot.

Two 2nds for Shaw was fair value, the reason MB got shit was because he couldn't pick a direction in terms of actually going for it or rebuilding. The same offseason we traded Eller for two 2nds. So in the end we swapped Eller for Shaw which did nothing for us in the short or long term. There would've been less hate had we kept Eller and still made the Shaw trade because at least we would've been trying to improve the team.

Same goes for the Drouin trade that you brought up earlier by the way. Had we kept Radulov and added Drouin to our top-6 it would've made a lot more sense as a trade because we would've at least in theory have been upgrading our top-6 which was the biggest issue at the time, though Markov's decline and what it meant for our D was also a serious issue.

 

[DrBizz4r3]

i agree but it's pretty rare to see players go from BOS to MTL and vice versa

I hope that’s where the Boston boys in the front office will work their magic

 

[BaseballCoach]

No one thought Hagel was too cheap when he was traded. In fact, TBL was mocked for going "cheap" to acquire a player who wasn't that impressive.

Not impressive?

Your takes are not in line with NHL experts.

Hagel was 23 years old, had 21 goals in 55 games at a $1.5M cap hit for 2.5 more years!!

Chicago was insane to trade him when rebuilding.

 

[Miller Time]

Two 2nds for Shaw was fair value, the reason MB got shit was because he couldn't pick a direction in terms of actually going for it or rebuilding. The same offseason we traded Eller for two 2nds. So in the end we swapped Eller for Shaw which did nothing for us in the short or long term. There would've been less hate had we kept Eller and still made the Shaw trade because at least we would've been trying to improve the team.

Same goes for the Drouin trade that you brought up earlier by the way. Had we kept Radulov and added Drouin to our top-6 it would've made a lot more sense as a trade because we would've at least in theory have been upgrading our top-6 which was the biggest issue at the time, though Markov's decline and what it meant for our D was also a serious issue.

This.

Trades, like draft choices and development approaches/decisions, can't be fully evaluated outside of the broader asset management context.

Bergevin had a lot of individual moves/decisions that were very solid, but the lack of a cohesive vision was apparent by his first offseason and ultimately undermined the potential success of those strong individual moves.

 

[Habsawce]

I'd definitely offer up Ryder, Halak and a 2nd for a 2nd line Centre. I think it can get it done.

 

[LaP]

Two 2nds for Shaw was fair value, the reason MB got shit was because he couldn't pick a direction in terms of actually going for it or rebuilding. The same offseason we traded Eller for two 2nds. So in the end we swapped Eller for Shaw which did nothing for us in the short or long term. There would've been less hate had we kept Eller and still made the Shaw trade because at least we would've been trying to improve the team.

Same goes for the Drouin trade that you brought up earlier by the way. Had we kept Radulov and added Drouin to our top-6 it would've made a lot more sense as a trade because we would've at least in theory have been upgrading our top-6 which was the biggest issue at the time, though Markov's decline and what it meant for our D was also a serious issue.

It would have been had Shaw been signed.

But Shaw was an upcoming RFA who was asking too much money for Chicago. It was not a secret Chicago did not want to spend the cap on him. We paid more than what would have been the compensation had we offer sheeted him with the same contract we signed him after making his acquisition. The OS compenation would have been a single 2nd round pick. We should have offered that 2nd round pick along with a small extra.

 

[Sorinth]

It would have been had Shaw been signed.

But Shaw was an upcoming RFA who was asking too much money for Chicago. It was not a secret Chicago did not want to spend the cap on him. We paid more than what would have been the compensation had we offer sheeted him with the same contract we signed him after making his acquisition. The OS compenation would have been a single 2nd round pick. We should have offered that 2nd round pick along with a small extra.

For sure a player's contract demands will impact the trade value. But I'm not sure OS compensation is good way of judging these type of things, nor do I think a single 2nd plus something small would've been the right value for Shaw or Eller for that matter.

 

[Captain Mountain]

It would have been had Shaw been signed.

But Shaw was an upcoming RFA who was asking too much money for Chicago. It was not a secret Chicago did not want to spend the cap on him. We paid more than what would have been the compensation had we offer sheeted him with the same contract we signed him after making his acquisition. The OS compenation would have been a single 2nd round pick. We should have offered that 2nd round pick along with a small extra.

Maybe, but this is a nickel and dime argument when the problem with the Bergevin-era was he never adapted to changing trends in the NHL and never picked a lane. He wouldn't rebuild and he wouldn't push his chips in.

Montreal trading a 2nd and 5th instead for Shaw wouldn't have changed anything in the grand scheme of things since what Montreal lacked was high end talent. Which is why I'm surprised so many posters are focused on Montreal using their trade assets to acquire veterans who wont be impact players for long or are already aren't impact players.

 

[LaP]

Maybe, but this is a nickel and dime argument when the problem with the Bergevin-era was he never adapted to changing trends in the NHL and never picked a lane. He wouldn't rebuild and he wouldn't push his chips in.

Montreal trading a 2nd and 5th instead for Shaw wouldn't have changed anything in the grand scheme of things since what Montreal lacked was high end talent. Which is why I'm surprised so many posters are focused on Montreal using their trade assets to acquire veterans who wont be impact players for long or are already aren't impact players.

Oh i agree with you it would not have changed anything I was just pointing out it was a tad too much for a guy the Hawks risked losing for much less via an OS on the RFA market a couple of days after the trade. I was very frustrated by the trade because we did not exploit a position of weakness from the Hawks. I was disappointed with the Armia / Mason trade for the same reason i felt Armia and some low picks was a weak return to help the Jets get out of the Manson contract and adding 1.366M to our cap for two extra years.

Anyway i agree with you that i would not pay anything worth something for immediate help either. If something is avalaible on the UFA market for a 2-3 years go for it. If you can get something for a Barron like prospect do it. But i'd keep the 1st and the good prospect unless a solid top 6 / top 4 player under 26 is the return.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Oh i agree with you it would not have changed anything I was just pointing out it was a tad too much for a guy the Hawks risked losing for much less via an OS on the RFA market a couple of days after the trade. I was very frustrated by the trade because we did not exploit a position of weakness from the Hawks. I was disappointed with the Armia / Mason trade for the same reason i felt Armia and some low picks was a weak return to help the Jets get out of the Manson contract and adding 1.366M to our cap for two extra years.

Anyway i agree with you that i would not pay anything worth something for immediate help either. If something is avalaible on the UFA market for a 2-3 years go for it. If you can get something for a Barron like prospect do it. But i'd keep the 1st and the good prospect unless a solid top 6 / top 4 player under 26 is the return.

Defencemen can usually be 1-2 years older than F.

 

[DemidovSZN]

Still think someone like Geekie would make sense if Boston can’t/won’t pay him.

 

[CzarDemidov]

Not impressive?

Your takes are not in line with NHL experts.

Hagel was 23 years old, had 21 goals in 55 games at a $1.5M cap hit for 2.5 more years!!

Chicago was insane to trade him when rebuilding.

55gp, 21g, 16a, 37pts, -14

He was an off the board trade, the discourse around it was that he'd support TBL in a depth goal scoring role and the Bolts had paid a lot for him but only due to his super low cap hit.

 

[BaseballCoach]

the problem with the Bergevin-era ........what Montreal lacked was high end talent.

They had six strong guys in 2017.

Price
Weber
Petry
Markov
Pacioretty
Radulov

Bergebozo let two of the six walk for nothing while extending Price to the highest, longest contract possible.

He invested dollars in Karl friggin Alzner, Andrew Shaw, 34 year old Tomas Plekanec and the equivalent of 6 x $7.1M today in Jonathan Drouin while sacrficing a promising ELC stud like Sergachev.

Not willing to follow up on having Price and Weber in their thirties, he passed on Ryan O'Reilly for Ryan Poehling.

Instead of learning from his cap mismanagement mistakes, he proceeded to give big raises later on to Paul Byron and Brendan Gallagher, sign Mike Hoffman for $13+M and overpay Josh Anderson while letting Danault and Kotkaniemi, walk only to pay prime assets and salary to Dvorak out of desperation.

My gosh.

 

[Captain Mountain]

55gp, 21g, 16a, 37pts, -14

He was an off the board trade, the discourse around it was that he'd support TBL in a depth goal scoring role and the Bolts had paid a lot for him but only due to his super low cap hit.

If you think Tampa was going cheap on Hagel or that he was just a depth piece, then you weren't watching him play and not looking at the underlying impacts. What he's doing now was unexpected, but it wasn't just his cap hit that made him desirable.

 

[sampollock]

man we the draft. see if KH makes a big deal

 

[Skip Bayless]

man we the draft. see if KH makes a big deal

One of three scenarios; He trades for immediate help on offense or he moves up to pick Desnoyers or he stays pat and drafts two solid prospects.

If he trades for immediate help, he will be more aggressive for the rest of the summer. If he picks Desnoyers, he will have more leeway from the fan base because the future top 6 C will be in the org... if he stays pat and drafts 16 and 17, all eyes will be on him.

 

[CzarDemidov]

If you think Tampa was going cheap on Hagel or that he was just a depth piece, then you weren't watching him play and not looking at the underlying impacts. What he's doing now was unexpected, but it wasn't just his cap hit that made him desirable.

• 2023 1st Round
• 2024 1st Round
• RWTaylor Raddysh
• LWBoris Katchouk

Hagel was not traded for too cheap. This is a preposterous comment. He had fewer than two seasons of games in his NHL career and was traded for a massive outlay. The criticism was that TBL was ripped off and could've gotten a better player for that amount. TBL proved everybody wrong and showed that they had indeed scouted Hagel right.

This is all irrelevant to the point: draft picks are currency. The Habs spent too much to acquire Newhook (at the time of the trade) and it's been a negative outcome since then.

 

[DrBizz4r3]

Man, we can say what we want (i personally love the front office). They are f*ing showman. 3 drafts in a row we were the talk in the league (or one of). I think it’s about to be four