HF Habs: - Trade Proposal Thread: From Here to Free Agency | Page 374 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread: From Here to Free Agency

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
  • Due to the increased volume of league transactions, the Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk section is temporarily restricted to where threads may only be started by moderators and sponsors. We anticipate that this restriction will be lifted some time after the first round of the draft.
Draft said:
Wouldn't have minded a guy like ZLH over Texier.

I'll start thinking about worrying when 2Cs start to move.
Click to expand...
Texier is clear as day better than l'heureux and ZLH is sincerely annoying with his baby antics and fake toughness.
 
Bacchus1 said:
My understand is that there is a no trade clause, where a player can still be demoted. And a no movement clause where a player cannot be traded or demoted.

"A Player with a No-Movement Clause cannot be loaned to the minor leagues or transferred, claimed on waivers or traded without the Player's consent."

A player has the right to waive the clause but it is a controlled by the player how much they may waive the clause (1 team or more).

If I were the NHL I would say that this flexibility is illegal, and it is all or nothing if the player requests it. If a team requests it, I would allow the player to negotiate under what terms.

I think the origins of the NMC is to have certainty. You can buy a house, your spouse can get a job, your kids can go to a specific school. It was designed for stability and so that a player isn't whisked across the continent overnight. But now it is being used to strong arm a team and weaken a team's trading strength. I don't think either of us can get into the heads of the original discussion on this topic, but feel free to quote the genesis of this clause at its inception.

Yes, the forcing I guess is more the limiting of options. They could have kept Brady and he just wouldn't have re-signed with them.

This is an idea I feel is good. I don't feel we need to argue a difference of what each of us may feel is good.
Click to expand...

It already exists, a player can have a NMC and a M-NTC at the same time. Once a player waive his NMC to request a trade, it falls back to the no-trade list pre-agreed upon in his M-NTC (this can also be waived if the player want to).

But at the end of the day, if you give a NMC or a Full NTC to a player, you don't get to whine if they pull a power move, because you did this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodKiwi
MeanMugging91 said:
Some people are willing to do anything for a trade just for the sake of doing a trade. Im perfectly fine even tho I want a trade to wait it out instead of massively overpaying or getting a guy we really dont need. While I do have Hage OR Zar on the table I ain't going to gut what we have to get a player that isnt exactly what we need.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the best move is not doing a move at all.

We have a few highly coveted pieces but we need to be aware also moving some pieces for the sake of making moves can cost us later when a move we need to make can’t be done because we don’t have the pieces.

I’m not saying to just stand pat forever, but we need to be sure that move is the right one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HabbyGuy, Gravity, BigDaddyLurch and 1 other person
Jaynki said:
Texier is clear as day better than l'heureux and ZLH is sincerely annoying with his baby antics and fake toughness.
Click to expand...
Him being annoying is an asset, I don't mind having a rat on the team that'll get the focus off some of our other players. Has enough skill to play on a 3rd line, likes to play physical, and has room to grow. I don't hate Texier, I'd just take another skill set.
 
dinodebino said:
Let me get this straight. Allegedly, we have/had Z on the table + our draft pick + another prospect/player for Knies.

Yet, a 4th overall pick in a weak draft, where, according to some of his biggest fans, you won’t be able to pick a better player than Z, would do the trick?

If a team that is not tanking prefers an unknown pick (who would be available come 4th) to Z, either their GM is a complete incompetent or our fanbase’s evaluation of Z (or Hage for that matter) is ridiculously too high.
Click to expand...
Going by what the Leafs media have been saying, it's top 10 pick + a top young player or top D for Knie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinodebino
sandviper said:
Sometimes the best move is not doing a move at all.

We have a few highly coveted pieces but we need to be aware also moving some pieces for the sake of making moves can cost us later when a move we need to make can’t be done because we don’t have the pieces.

I’m not saying to just stand pat forever, but we need to be sure that move is the right one.
Click to expand...
This guy gets it. I dont doubt Kent is working the phones trying to do something that makes sense but im not one bit sad we missed out on a guy like kyrou like we couldnt have topped that offer. Just didn't make sense for us to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodKiwi, HabbyGuy, Gravity and 1 other person
morhilane said:
Going by what the Leafs media have been saying, it's top 10 pick + a top young player or top D for Knie.
Click to expand...
They’re really trying to milk it. Get the feeling their new geek wants to show Pelley that he get more than what the Habs had offered under Tre. Maybe they can. Wonder who Buffalo can throw as a young player for Knies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HitHard
Draft said:
Him being annoying is an asset, I don't mind having a rat on the team that'll get the focus off some of our other players. Has enough skill to play on a 3rd line, likes to play physical, and has room to grow. I don't hate Texier, I'd just take another skill set.
Click to expand...
Its not an asset. Its an embarassment.
 
JoelWarlord said:
Carlo would be a good depth upgrade. Something like

Hutson-Dobson
Matheson-Carlo
Guhle-Carrier

Would be a pretty good reg season rotation
Click to expand...
Yes, and we could trade Carrier mid-season if Reinbacher is ready.

I wouldn't mind Carlo as a buy low option, provided he can still play. I don't know if he can, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLONG7
themilosh said:
Reality is simple. Hugo MO seems to be one massive trade each year btw Draft-deadline.
He's going after a 2C, and making it work.
2W & 2RHD can wait.

My belief remains: there are only two assets that will acquire a 2C (1ab) wirthy of a fit within our core: Larkin, Thomas, EP40 (25% retained)

To get any of these guys, Hage + 1st at minimum is all but gone, and rightfully so.

And i will celebrate once he nails down one of these guys. They are all perfect fir our top 6.

The remainder can be developed or added later. But 2C is desperation level. One if the reasons Knies failure was a blessing in disguise.
Click to expand...
Hell nah not Hage for Petterson at 25%. He'd already be gone if people was willing to risk it. Would consider if Hronek was also in the trade.
 
dinodebino said:
They’re really trying to milk it. Get the feeling their new geek wants to show Pelley that he get more than what the Habs had offered under Tre. Maybe they can. Wonder who Buffalo can throw as a young player for Knies.
Click to expand...
Buf has to send a forward back anyway, they still have like 16 NHL ready. The problem is that the Leafs are going to ask for one that is probably just as good as Knie + the #4 oa + probably something else. Because the point is not to trade Knie, it's to rip off another team.

Archijerej said:
Yes, and we could trade Carrier mid-season if Reinbacher is ready.

I wouldn't mind Carlo as a buy low option, provided he can still play. I don't know if he can, though.
Click to expand...
The question is if Carlo can keep up with the Habs defense mobility requirements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinodebino
This year, keeping your draft choices you got from exchanging your good players is bad asset management as team needed to offload them in the last days .

The GM that have too much will be depreciative asset bag holders and lose more value hours closer to the draft. (If they want to trade them)

Draft choices can be good but losing value isnt. I think that draft choices might hold less value in the next 48 hours as trading chips to get an active player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 30 more.
    • Total: 149 (members: 98, guests: 51)

    Latest posts

    Ad

    Ad

    Top Bottom