Proposal: Trade Proposal Thread: Part 61

[Sterling Archer]

You don't think losing has an adverse affect?

If you're entire organizational mandate is to lose, just so you can have a shot at drafting Wright this year, Bedard or Michkov the next...and you gut your roster to try to make that happen.

You don't think that all of that losing and talent/experience erosion, will have an effect on those players?

You’re conflating losing, with developing. If you’re giving your young players the opportunity to play and make mistakes without fear of benching and being replaced by a scrub veteran than they can develop better. Will they lose more games than they win? Probably. Will they feel better about their progression towards being their best? Yes. Then when they’re ready, you spend the extra cap space you have and trade picks to add to that core and you’ll have a much more confident group of kids who will be excited to use their talent to win when surrounded by those vets. It’s what contending teams have done. The failure is not insulating the youth with more seasoned vets like Toronto, Edmonton and Carolina have done.

 

[CHfan1]

People point to Toews & Kane...but forget the acquisition of Marian Hossa or Patrick Sharpe or drafting Duncan Keith in the 2nd round or acquiring Andrew Ladd.

Nah..none of that mattered.

The reason why the Chicago Blackawks had a mini-dynasty in the 2010s,, is solely attributable to Kane & Toews.

Agreed on this. They had a good foundation, especially with Keith as their #1 defenceman and Seabrook as well. Do the Habs have that right now in their system? Having a top 5 defenceman (or top 5 centre) in the league goes a long ways (see Hedman in Tampa or Doughty in LA during their Cup runs).

I also don’t think the Hawks win those Cups without Kane and Toews. Like Pittsburgh before them they were able to bottom out at the right times to get two key pieces that lead them to multiple Cups. The Habs don’t have players of that calibre on their roster right now. I think they need them to compete for a Cup.

As a note I don’t want to see the Habs tank for years, I agree that creates a losing culture that is hard to get out of. I’m just trying to set a realistic expectation on how long a rebuild (through the draft will take). The team, right now, has been left in terrible shape with a lot of aging vets on long term contracts. I think it’s going to take awhile to turn it around.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Except that's not what's being described for the most part in this thread.

Can't say I agree. Its a sliding scale and there are multitudes of opinions

The only concern is losing as much as possible...no regard for what that does to an organization's identity or it's current players.

Even people who want to burn everything to the ground care about more than losing as much as possible.

And the organization doesn't have an identity to preserve. That's part of the problem.

Bergevin never had a plan that stretched beyond that year before him.

Yes he did. He wanted to retool around Price and Weber. Step back for a bit during the 2017-2018 season, accrue picks and keep cap space available for an opportunity.

You still think that if we're gutting the team around them for the sole purpose of being the worst possible team?

Yes. Because that's what happens everywhere else.

And the Habs can make relatively few changes to the roster and still be the worst possible team. They've got one of the worst D-cores in the NHL with help not coming soon enough and an aging, overpaid forward group asked to play higher than they should with no clear identity.

There are many reasons why those rebuilds never took off, I don't think impatience was the issue...I think establishing a losing culture and accepting losing, did though.

You're free to believe that, but if you think Edmonton rushing its rebuilds by spending in free agency like druken sailors or Buffalo's start and stop attempts to fix their roster through trades and free agency weren't issues, then I'm not sure what to think.

 

[417]

These are really poor examples because these teams never tore it down. Lecavalier, St.Louis all stayed on in Tampa. Richards wasn't even traded for futures. I don't remember the context surronding the Dan Boyle trade, but he had signed a long-term some 6 months before the trade. These guys were all vets who were kept around despite bad years.

Same with Chicago. They signed big money FAs in 2005 trying to compete (Khabibulin, Aucoin) and traded for Havlat in 2006, giving up futures in the process.

Neither of these teams did what posters here are advocating for. It says a lot that multiple posters are liking these posts without even knowing the context of what these teams were doing at the time.

It's amazing...people just focus on Toews & Kane for Chicago...Crosby & Malkin for Pittsburgh...Ovechkin & Backstrom for Washington.

And ignoring everything else that happened before and after, like they didn't make significant trades to acquire players.

Talk about tunnel vision

 

[Sterling Archer]

This board is littered with posts about gutting the roster for Bedard/Michkov...stop that. I'm not imagining things.

I literally got into a 2 day debate with a poster the other day because the said that the organizational mandate or goal, should be to tank.

So yes, people are literally saying they...they're literally wanting this team to be bad, because they think that's the only way to get better.

But that's a misnomer.


Yes, that's PART of it...but it's far from the only thing.

And it's not the only way to get players good enough to build around.

Take the Chicago Blackhawks, Los Angeles Kings, Pittsburgh Penguins and Tampa Bay Ligthning...I assure you, that they won their Cups not exclusively because of the players they acquired with their top 5 picks.

In fact, they actually won when those top 5 picks were properly surrounded and supported by sound decision making in other phases of player procurement.

That’s not wrong. Tanking is the ONLY way to get top tier talent. You literally can not rebuild without drafting your core star players. It’s just not done in the cap era.
So yes, you have to tank a couple of years and hope for good drafts to be able to do that. What’s wrong with that?

 

[417]

You’re conflating losing, with developing. If you’re giving your young players the opportunity to play and make mistakes without fear of benching and being replaced by a scrub veteran than they can develop better. Will they lose more games than they win? Probably. Will they feel better about their progression towards being their best? Yes. Then when they’re ready, you spend the extra cap space you have and trade picks to add to that core and you’ll have a much more confident group of kids who will be excited to use their talent to win when surrounded by those vets. It’s what contending teams have done. The failure is not insulating the youth with more seasoned vets like Toronto, Edmonton and Carolina have done.

It's delicate balance...

This team sucks as is, and there will be opportunity to acquire additional picks which will help in rebuilding this team.

But anyone who thinks they're just going to gut this roster and lead it void of veteran leadership/talent just to improve their odds at drafting 1st, is kidding themselves.

Save yourself the false hopes man.

Some guys will go, some will stay.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It's amazing...people just focus on Toews & Kane for Chicago...Crosby & Malkin for Pittsburgh...Ovechkin & Backstrom for Washington.

And ignoring everything else that happened before and after, like they didn't make significant trades to acquire players.

Talk about tunnel vision

Posters have no idea what they're talking about. Weeks ago, a poster who's been going back and forth with you in this very thread tried to tell me that Martin St.Louis was traded by the TB as a rebuild move. Tampa Bay finished 3rd in the conference the year he was traded and St.Louis requested a trade because his relationship with Yzerman had broken down following his having left off Team Canada for the Olympics.

 

[BozoTheClown]

It's amazing...people just focus on Toews & Kane for Chicago...Crosby & Malkin for Pittsburgh...Ovechkin & Backstrom for Washington.

And ignoring everything else that happened before and after, like they didn't make significant trades to acquire players.

Talk about tunnel vision

I think most knowledgeable fans know the trades those teams made to win the cup, I could add Tampa Bay to your list. I took The Lightning over 10 years to win the cup after drafting Stamkos and Hedman,10 years of going from missing the playoffs to the Stanley Cup final. After several trials and errors seasons, they were finally able to win the Cup, 13 years after drafting Stamkos. This is Tampa Bay, a organization with great management.

Good luck accomplishing this within 3 years.

 

[417]

Can't say I agree. Its a sliding scale and there are multitudes of opinions.

Again, i'm not imagining posts.

Yes he did. He wanted to retool around Price and Weber. Step back for a bit during the 2017-2018 season, accrue picks and keep cap space available for an opportunity.

Well agree in part, there was a shift in 2018...but before that, Bergevin was content with tinkering around the edges of his roster because he thought just having Carey Price was good enough.

There never had been a plan beyond just relying on Carey Price.

In fact, relying on the goalie to make miracles has been this organizational philosophy since Patrick Roy won them their last Cup.

Yes. Because that's what happens everywhere else.

You're looking at things with blinders on.

That's not what happens everywhere else.

And the Habs can make relatively few changes to the roster and still be the worst possible team. They've got one of the worst D-cores in the NHL with help not coming soon enough and an aging, overpaid forward group asked to play higher than they should with no clear identity.

There is help coming on D, aging, overpaid forward group?

I mean...the only forward in this entire lineup whose over the age of 30 is Mike Hoffman lol

You're free to believe that, but if you think Edmonton rushing its rebuilds by spending in free agency like druken sailors or Buffalo's start and stop attempts to fix their roster through trades and free agency weren't issues, then I'm not sure what to think.

I haven't gone into detail about the Oilers and Sabres and that's a lot of years of data to resume as you just did above.

But there are MANY reasons why their rebuilds didn't work...to try to resume them all as simple as you put it above, is kind of silly.

Both organizations had deep, deep management issues, among other things.

But sure...let's put it all on the Oilers spending in free agency...because we all know how Edmonton is a free agent attraction.

 

[417]

That’s not wrong. Tanking is the ONLY way to get top tier talent. You literally can not rebuild without drafting your core star players. It’s just not done in the cap era.
So yes, you have to tank a couple of years and hope for good drafts to be able to do that. What’s wrong with that?

This is patently false...and ignores everything else to just focus on exceptions like Crosby or McDavid or Ovechkin.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I think most knowledgeable fans know the trades those teams made to win the cup, I could add Tampa Bay to your list. I took The Lightning over 10 years to win the cup after drafting Stamkos and Hedman,10 years of going from missing the playoffs to the Stanley Cup final. After several trials and errors seasons, they were finally able to win the Cup, 13 years after drafting Stamkos. This is Tampa Bay, a organization with great management.

Good luck accomplishing this within 3 years.

Most of the posters here have close to zero ideas about what other teams did before winning. Anyone who thinks Tampa Bay did what posters here are advocating for the Canadiens to do are completely out to lunch. Same thing with Chicago.

 

[417]

I think most knowledgeable fans know the trades those teams made to win the cup, I could add Tampa Bay to your list. I took The Lightning over 10 years to win the cup after drafting Stamkos and Hedman,10 years of going from missing the playoffs to the Stanley Cup final. After several trials and errors seasons, they were finally able to win the Cup, 13 years after drafting Stamkos. This is Tampa Bay, a organization with great management.

Good luck accomplishing this within 3 years.

Yet they never mention it when it comes to observing rebuild models.

They ignore literally EVERYTHING else, and just cherry pick the most obvious and easiest things those teams did, which was to pick Crosby or McDavid or Kane.

There's nothing difficult about that.

The real work is everything else they did. THAT's what made those franchise Cup winning franchises.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Yes, that's PART of it...but it's far from the only thing.

And it's not the only way to get players good enough to build around.

Take the Chicago Blackhawks, Los Angeles Kings, Pittsburgh Penguins and Tampa Bay Ligthning...I assure you, that they won their Cups not exclusively because of the players they acquired with their top 5 picks.

In fact, they actually won when those top 5 picks were properly surrounded and supported by sound decision making in other phases of player procurement.

Let me put it this way. Does:

1) Chicago win the cup without Toews or Kane?
2) LA win the cup without Doughty or trading Brayden Schenn for Richards?
3) Pittsburgh win the cup without Malkin, Crosby, etc.?
4) Tampa win the cup without Stamkos, Hedman, trading Drouin for Sergachev?

I'm not sure what the point of arguing that drafting is not the only thing to building a contender is. Is there anyone, anywhere arguing that drafting well later on, developing, trading, etc. aren't important? That's not the point.

The point is that the best chance of getting core, elite players is very early in the 1st round. And that its a chance, which means you can't dip into that part of the draft every once in a while (say, 2012, 2018 and 2022) and hope you get an elite talent and leave it at that. There's got to be more consideration than that.

 

[Vachon23]

Yet they never mention it when it comes to observing rebuild models.

They ignore literally EVERYTHING else, and just cherry pick the most obvious and easiest things those teams did, which was to pick Crosby or McDavid or Kane.

There's nothing difficult about that.

The real work is everything else they did. THAT's what made those franchise Cup winning franchises.

A lot here think you can rebuild a team like in NHL 22 where you trade everyone and all you’re prospect become good no matter what

 

[Spring in Fialta]

A lot here think you can rebuild a team like in NHL 22 where you trade everyone and all you’re prospect become good no matter what

A lot here think the NHL is a fictional league.

 

[BozoTheClown]

Most of the posters here have close to zero ideas about what other teams did before winning. Anyone who thinks Tampa Bay did what posters here are advocating for the Canadiens to do are completely out to lunch. Same thing with Chicago.

You do need to draft high end talent and be extremely lucky at the same time to be successful. I try staying positive as much as possible, but what do we do if we draft top 5 3 years in a row and end up drafting Galchenyuk or Yakupov type players. Do we say, “well, we drafted 1st overall twice in row, we should now try building a contender?

 

[Sterling Archer]

It's delicate balance...

This team sucks as is, and there will be opportunity to acquire additional picks which will help in rebuilding this team.

But anyone who thinks they're just going to gut this roster and lead it void of veteran leadership/talent just to improve their odds at drafting 1st, is kidding themselves.

Save yourself the false hopes man.

Some guys will go, some will stay.

Which vet on this current roster is worth keeping? They are few as the majority are easily replaceable or will be aged out in the next 2-3 years anyways. We don’t have a core of mid twenties players who will hit their peak in the next couple of years. All most of the current older roster are doing is eating much needed cap space.

This is patently false...and ignores everything else to just focus on exceptions like Crosby or McDavid or Ovechkin.

What other teams are perennial contenders than ones who have a drafted core of star players over several years? I’ll wait.

 

[BozoTheClown]

Yet they never mention it when it comes to observing rebuild models.

They ignore literally EVERYTHING else, and just cherry pick the most obvious and easiest things those teams did, which was to pick Crosby or McDavid or Kane.

There's nothing difficult about that.

The real work is everything else they did. THAT's what made those franchise Cup winning franchises.

What do we do if we don’t get those high end talent after drafting 3 seasons in a row in the top 5?
How do we get those high end talents if we don’t have anything of value to trade?
There are 2 more teams added to the league the last few years, making it even harder to attract UFAs.

 

[417]

Let me put it this way. Does:

1) Chicago win the cup without Toews or Kane?
2) LA win the cup without Doughty or trading Brayden Schenn for Richards?
3) Pittsburgh win the cup without Malkin, Crosby, etc.?
4) Tampa win the cup without Stamkos, Hedman, trading Drouin for Sergachev?

I'm not sure what the point of arguing that drafting is not the only thing to building a contender is. Is there anyone, anywhere arguing that drafting well later on, developing, trading, etc. aren't important?

Yes, hence the running debate.

That's not the point.

That's the very point i've debating, maybe you jumped in without realizing it.

That ain't my fault.

The point is that the best chance of getting core, elite players is very early in the 1st round. And that its a chance, which means you can't dip into that part of the draft every once in a while (say, 2012, 2018 and 2022) and hope you get an elite talent and leave it at that. There's got to be more consideration than that.

That's fine...I don't believe in artificially breeding losing.

To each his own.

 

[417]

A lot here think you can rebuild a team like in NHL 22 where you trade everyone and all you’re prospect become good no matter what

Exactly...and you simulate the seasons where you're tanking...and it's over in 90 seconds.

not 4 real years.

 

[417]

Which vet on this current roster is worth keeping? They are few as the majority are easily replaceable or will be aged out in the next 2-3 years anyways. We don’t have a core of mid twenties players who will hit their peak in the next couple of years. All most of the current older roster are doing is eating much needed cap space.

Hard to say in current context.

But I don't think selling Petry or Gallagher or Toffoli for 10cents on the dollar all for the purpose of tanking helps this team.

Especially not with the way they're playing now.

What other teams are perennial contenders than ones who have a drafted core of star players over several years? I’ll wait.

Again...you keep focusing on ONE aspect of player procurement and ignoring all others.

There's really no point in me participating in such an exercise.

At least until you accept that there's more that went into the Tampa Bay Lightining winning back to back Cups, then simply drafting Stamkos & Hedman early.

 

[417]

What do we do if we don’t get those high end talent after drafting 3 seasons in a row in the top 5?
How do we get those high end talents if we don’t have anything of value to trade?
There are 2 more teams added to the league the last few years, making it even harder to attract UFAs.

Again...i'm not saying to NOT draft in the top 3.

If the team sucks and that's where they end up...beautiful.

But I am not a believer in gutting your team, in an artificial way, to get there.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Again, i'm not imagining posts.

Neither am I, I just think you're too focused on them.

Well agree in part, there was a shift in 2018...but before that, Bergevin was content with tinkering around the edges of his roster because he thought just having Carey Price was good enough.

There never had been a plan beyond just relying on Carey Price.

In fact, relying on the goalie to make miracles has been this organizational philosophy since Patrick Roy won them their last Cup.

He traded Subban in 2016 and Sergachev in 2017, he wasn't just tinkering before 2018.

And part of the reason they've relied on goaltending is that you don't need to assemble a strong core to compete if you're just relying on a goalie. You don't need to rebuild.

You're looking at things with blinders on.

That's not what happens everywhere else.

I'm not. How do you think most of these teams improve? Its because the young guys start carrying the load more and more.

There is help coming on D, aging, overpaid forward group?

I mean...the only forward in this entire lineup whose over the age of 30 is Mike Hoffman lol

When, because its not anytime soon.

And since when is 30 the measure of aging? Peak age of forwards is 24 and the average age of teams is 27ish.

I haven't gone into detail about the Oilers and Sabres and that's a lot of years of data to resume as you just did above.

But there are MANY reasons why their rebuilds didn't work...to try to resume them all as simple as you put it above, is kind of silly.

Both organizations had deep, deep management issues, among other things.

But sure...let's put it all on the Oilers spending in free agency...because we all know how Edmonton is a free agent attraction.

I'm not simplifying anything, I'm wondering why you're underplaying something specific that's kind of obvious. Like, everyone knows nuance is a thing, I just don't quite get your reticence for actually rebuilding or why you interpret moving veterans or not competing for an extended period of time is a terrible thing when almost every modern cup winner has done so. Like, what's the goal? To be the Penguins or to be the Flyers?

And Montreal doesn't have the easiest time getting free agents either. And relying on Free Agency is part of the problem anyways.[/QUOTE]

 

[BozoTheClown]

Again...i'm not saying to NOT draft in the top 3.

If the team sucks and that's where they end up...beautiful.

But I am not a believer in gutting your team, in an artificial way, to get there.

Trading vets that don’t fit in the future like Gallagher and Price isn’t gutting your team artificially. It’s about getting assets back while weakening your team for the short future to maximize your drafting power. You might have to repeat the process a couple of times.

We should play the players we drafted the last 3 to 4 draft and hope no some of them will be your 3rd/4th line , bottom pairing dmen or depth players.

 

[Runner77]

Any trade proposals in this thread?

The thread has morphed into dueling rebuild timelines.