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

[BenchBrawl]

Heee no

No you wouldn't do it, or no they wouldn't do it?

 

[BenchBrawl]

16th & 17th, Hage, Reinbacher

for

OTC pick to draft Desnoyers

I would pull the trigger and hope Reinbacher never becomes a Serge Savard.

 

[Sterling Archer]

16th & 17th, Hage, Reinbacher

for

OTC pick to draft Desnoyers

I would pull the trigger and hope Reinbacher never becomes a Serge Savard.

Maybe for Gavin McKenna. Not for Desnoyers.

 

[Adam Michaels]

But you also get a useful player that can actually play instead of a player who's probably never even coming to the city and is out fishing and hunting all year.

But the team might prefer having 10.5M on their cap to meet the floor without paying a single cent. The owner will be happy with that. A lot of teams work with an internal budget.

I'm just not sure what team is desperate to reach the floor or is able to save the LTIR contract for in-season. Teams like the Hawks and Sharks didn't hesitate to pay for players in free agency, and I don't expect that to change. The Ducks are trying to improve the team to reach the next level as well.

Every team will sign free agents. My argument is that Habs will not need to pay to get rid of Price's LTIR. The team who will get Price's 10.5 cap hit will benefit from it, whether to reach the cap floor or to use that 10.5 on LTIR themselves for cap relief.

Vegas added a 2nd to Dadonov in the nixed Ducks trade because he was a negative asset. Dadonov was then traded for Weber one for one. Thus, Weber was a negative asset. If Weber's LTIR was valuable and seen as a positive, we would have gotten a pick instead of a cap dump.

The argument is if the Habs need to add to get rid of Price's 10.5. People were saying the same thing about Weber. As you can see, Habs did not need to do that.

 

[Draft]

I would be ecstatic to get Caleb Desnoyers, a French-Canadian heart and soul Top 6 center for the next 15-20 years.

Realistically, what would it take?

16 & 17th, Michael Hage + David Reinbacher? Would they even be interested?

It's risky but no guts no glory. Reinbacher could become really good but he could also turn into a run of the mill 3rd-4th defenseman.

Desnoyers would bring back the tradition of having top French-Canadian talent on this team.

You're talking about trading 5th, 16th, 17th, and 21st for a guy that MIGHT go top-5 and have a D+1 as good as Hage.

Desnoyers is not that guy... at all. Closer to a Brassard than a Lecavalier.

 

[McGees]

Not trying to speak for him but he did get the Demidov thing right. Anyway I like Incarcerated Bob more as a source, particularly for New York teams.

He got it right because he happened to have an interview with Demidov that day - who hadn’t been media trained yet about spilling the beans

 

[Ghetto Sangria]

I’m repeating what I’ve heard from Isles fans regarding the skating. Might be more indicative of a decline relative to where he’s been previously rather than compared to the league. He used to be a very fast skater and has also dealt with lower body injuries IIRC. If he’s a #4 now, what is he if he shows *any* decline after 31? That starts next season and is just about inevitable for every player in history.

Horvat is far less effective as a center if his skating declines. He was a pretty poor skater prior to his peak, nothing saying he can’t return to that. He’s overrated and overpayed even before he starts to decline.

I might be convinced to pick up one of them if younger options don’t materialize. Acquiring both is risking nearly 15mil of dead cap during our contending window. I’m not arguing whether they’d make the team better today. While I don’t think it puts us into Cup contender status, it almost definitely solidifies a playoff spot. However, I’m not interested in losing hard-earned cap flexibility and significant assets for secondary players that won’t be a part of our best contending years. That’s too shortsighted IMO.

I get the concern, but it depends what you consider our window? Our best player, Suzuki, is going to be 26 next season. His steal of a contract has 5 years left. His next contract will be (according to you) during his downswing, most likely at a raise. Cole, slaf, demidov and hutson will all be a couple of years or more into their first long term deals.

Seems to me the window is within the next 5 years, no? We need good players now

 

[TomKosto]

If we're making an argument for Pulock, then why not take a run at signing Ekblad first?

Some may not like it, but I’m convince that Hughes is gonna make a pretty big offer to Ekblad

 

[Draft]

I get the concern, but it depends what you consider our window? Our best player, Suzuki, is going to be 26 next season. His steal of a contract has 5 years left. His next contract will be (according to you) during his downswing, most likely at a raise. Cole, slaf, demidov and hutson will all be a couple of years or more into their first long term deals.

Seems to me the window is within the next 5 years, no? We need good players now

Do you not agree that the vast majority of players begin to decline after 30? Disregarding outliers, this is one of the only consistent things in an NHL career. A number 4 defenceman and a center that's struggled to crack 60pts throughout his career aren't the kind of elite players we sometimes see push past the decline. Is it not going to happen to Pulock/Horvat just because the Habs acquire them?

I think the season after next - when Reinbacher/Slafkovsky/Demidov are potentially core contributors - is when I'd start thinking about additions like this. Extending Suzuki at 30 years old when our core is all in their prime is very different than adding 30/31 year old players while that core is barely playoff quality.

If our window is the next five years, I don't think adding two players who are highly unlikely to make a positive impact throughout that window and could potentially even shorten that window is a good move. Additionally, if I'm taking on bad contracts, I'd rather do it for free through Free Agency rather than moving big assets for the privilege.

 

[Kimota]

Tony came up with not a bad idea tonight. Lundell with the Panthers. Had around 45 points this year as a third line center. And if Florida actually do everything to sign Bennett then Lundell could be available. He has some size to him and skills. And by playing on the second line with us, he would have the chance to do more points. And given he hasn't had insane numbers, he could be available for not too much.

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Tony came up with not a bad idea tonight. Lundell with the Panthers. Had around 45 points this year as a third line center. And if Florida actually do everything to sign Bennett then Lundell could be available. He has some size to him and skills. And by playing on the second line with us, he would have the chance to do more points. And given he hasn't had insane numbers, he could be available for not too much.

Panthers are not letting Lundell go. Like 0 chance.

 

[Ghetto Sangria]

Do you not agree that the vast majority of players begin to decline after 30? Disregarding outliers, this is one of the only consistent things in an NHL career. A number 4 defenceman and a center that's struggled to crack 60pts throughout his career aren't the kind of elite players we sometimes see push past the decline. Is it not going to happen to Pulock/Horvat just because the Habs acquire them?

I think the season after next - when Reinbacher/Slafkovsky/Demidov are potentially core contributors - is when I'd start thinking about additions like this. Extending Suzuki at 30 years old when our core is all in their prime is very different than adding 30/31 year old players while that core is barely playoff quality.

If our window is the next five years, I don't think adding two players who are highly unlikely to make a positive impact throughout that window and could potentially even shorten that window is a good move. Additionally, if I'm taking on bad contracts, I'd rather do it for free through Free Agency rather than moving big assets for the privilege.

I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree on what constitutes a bad contract. Horvat and pulock are both fairly paid for what they bring. Horvat can absolutely be a 2c on a cup winning team.

It’s also not realistic to not have 30+ players on cup winning teams. You need vets to help you get through the POs. We’ll need to add some effective ones soon. Our team is too young and green

 

[Sorinth]

But the team might prefer having 10.5M on their cap to meet the floor without paying a single cent. The owner will be happy with that. A lot of teams work with an internal budget.



Every team will sign free agents. My argument is that Habs will not need to pay to get rid of Price's LTIR. The team who will get Price's 10.5 cap hit will benefit from it, whether to reach the cap floor or to use that 10.5 on LTIR themselves for cap relief.



The argument is if the Habs need to add to get rid of Price's 10.5. People were saying the same thing about Weber. As you can see, Habs did not need to do that.

Teams don't benefit from Price being on LTIR, if they did we would keep him and get those same benefits. So if Price gets traded to a team planning on spending to the cap it will because a cap dump is going the other way. That's what happened with Weber, the benefit to Vegas was dumping Dadonov contract.

If a team is using him to get to the floor then sure there's a benefit to that team's owner. But I'm not sure any team will actually sruggle to get to the cap floor next season. Even the tank teams seem pretty comfortably above the cap floor.

 

[Draft]

I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree on what constitutes a bad contract. Horvat and pulock are both fairly paid for what they bring. Horvat can absolutely be a 2c on a cup winning team.

It’s also not realistic to not have 30+ players on cup winning teams. You need vets to help you get through the POs. We’ll need to add some effective ones soon. Our team is too young and green

They're retirement contracts. They're built knowing the players won't deliver for the full length of the deal. Teams sign these deals to keep the AAV down while they're competing - in this case, in line with a core of Lee/Nelson/Sorokin/Barzal/Pelech. These are BAD contracts for a team that's not immediately competing or aiming to peak in a couple years with a core that's currently all 25 or (mostly) under.

Can you point to a successful team that's acquired older secondary players like this on big long-term contracts with a core all 25 and under?

 

[Doctor Bold]

He's a RFA in 2025-2026.

Apologies… my post got cut off… I was on my way to suggesting Pius Suter. 25 goals, shoots left, kills penalties, apparently plays bigger than he is. And no assets spent. About $4M/year, likely

 

[Adam Michaels]

Teams don't benefit from Price being on LTIR, if they did we would keep him and get those same benefits. So if Price gets traded to a team planning on spending to the cap it will because a cap dump is going the other way. That's what happened with Weber, the benefit to Vegas was dumping Dadonov contract.

If a team is using him to get to the floor then sure there's a benefit to that team's owner. But I'm not sure any team will actually sruggle to get to the cap floor next season. Even the tank teams seem pretty comfortably above the cap floor.

I'm repeating again, as was the reason the debate started, Habs will not need to add anything if Habs decide to trade Price's 10.5 cap hit.

 

[Sorinth]

Can you point to a successful team that's acquired older secondary players like this on big long-term contracts with a core all 25 and under?

Chicago comes to mind, even excluding Hossa for not being a "secondary player", they spent big money on Brian Campbell and Huet who were certainly secondary at best for them.

 

[Sorinth]

I'm repeating again, as was the reason the debate started, Habs will not need to add anything if Habs decide to trade Price's 10.5 cap hit.

If we aren't adding something we would have to take a cap dump in return, and I doubt we want to do that. Now chances are the thing we "add" is going to be pretty minor, so like Price + Kidney for a prospect not as good as Kidney.

 

[Draft]

Chicago comes to mind, even excluding Hossa for not being a "secondary player", they spent big money on Brian Campbell and Huet who were certainly secondary at best for them.

Signed Huet to a 4 year deal. That contract did not work out well for them, he leaves after two years. Campbell signs for 8 years at 30yrs old. He gets traded three years later due to salary issues.

Neither cost assets to acquire.

 

[Sorinth]

Signed Huet to a 4 year deal. That contract did not work out well for them, he leaves after two years. Campbell signs for 8 years at 30yrs old. He gets traded three years later due to salary issues.

Neither cost assets to acquire.

Your original point was about age and how 30+ players don't fit with a u25 core, so it's irrelevant that they were signings and not trades. Chicago added three such 30+ players to their young core and then won the cup.

 

[TomKosto]

Watching Ekblad again tonite…

Skating is bad but he can clear the net and still has some offense. Could be a good vet around the kids and give time to Reino to developp.

 

[Doublechin]

16th & 17th, Hage, Reinbacher

for

OTC pick to draft Desnoyers

I would pull the trigger and hope Reinbacher never becomes a Serge Savard.

Jesus Christ

This is brutal

 

[Doublechin]

Tony came up with not a bad idea tonight. Lundell with the Panthers. Had around 45 points this year as a third line center. And if Florida actually do everything to sign Bennett then Lundell could be available. He has some size to him and skills. And by playing on the second line with us, he would have the chance to do more points. And given he hasn't had insane numbers, he could be available for not too much.

It's very likely that the Panthers keep both and figure out that in 3 years from now maybe their roles swap and Bennett drops as the third line center

 

[Draft]

Your original point was about age and how 30+ players don't fit with a u25 core, so it's irrelevant that they were signings and not trades. Chicago added three such 30+ players to their young core and then won the cup.

The fact that they're signings (instead of trades for Horvat/Pulock) is relevant to the rest of the conversation you're contributing to. Pretty sure my point is that taking on secondary guys already signed to big retirement deals doesn't fit with a core this young, not that guys over 30 can't be on the team.

Campbell is signed to a monster deal as a top pairing, PPQB. Huet as a starting goalie. Hossa as Hossa. I wouldn't say that there are comparable UFAs this year or that a Horvat/Pulock trade would be remotely comparable.

 

[Ghetto Sangria]

The fact that they're signings (instead of trades for Horvat/Pulock) is relevant to the rest of the conversation you're contributing to. Pretty sure my point is that taking on secondary guys already signed to big retirement deals doesn't fit with a core this young, not that guys over 30 can't be on the team.

Campbell is signed to a monster deal as a top pairing, PPQB. Huet as a starting goalie. Hossa as Hossa. I wouldn't say that there are comparable UFAs this year or that a Horvat/Pulock trade would be remotely comparable.

Campbell was barely a top 4 defensemen when he contributed to Chicago's cup. Huet, a starting goalie? Hossa was hossa though.

You continue to prove the point that 30+ players are necessary to win a cup. Veteran presence matters. Whether you trade for them or sign them doesn't matter. You absolutely need them.

Pulock should realistically be a top 4 defensemen during the majority of Suzuki's prime. It blows my mind how you don't appreciate Horvat as a legitimate top 6 center on a stanley cup contender. He's literally everything we need as a 2c.

But yes, I agree, I'd rather sign those vets via free agency but teams tend to overpay for UFAs and Montreal does not have a strong history of signing the Bennetts and Ekblads of the world.