Proposal: Trade Proposal Thread: Part 66

[Adam Michaels]

What is suggested here is getting guys who are behind their development. Kravstov is behind schedule, and Lunkvist at 21 is getting late also. Whenever you ask for folks ahead, like Pelletier, you get the cold shoulder or you need to work this out in the off-season. It's normal they have a lot more value than the picks, since their club is developing them into what they need.

Ex: Suzuki was acquired in the off-season, in September, at the beginning of the next one.

First, regarding Pelletier. You're looking to relieve some cap space. You're able to trade someone with term without needing to retain salary. You really think the team that is taking 100% of the guy's contract will give you a 1st AND their top prospect? You're dreaming in colors if you think the Flames would offer a 1st and their top prospect to help you save on the cap for the next few years.

Secondly, it doesn't matter when Suzuki was acquired. They got a prospect ahead in his development in that trade and didn't just go for picks.

Here's another example: when MB acquired 23-year old Danault from Chicago and a 2nd round pick. Danault was a young guy who was a late 1st round pick and was a Chicago prospect ahead in his development. He was able to come in sooner, while that draft pick was used to select Romanov, who would come in later.

Lundkvist is in his first season in NA after spending his 19-year old & 20-year old seasons in the SHL playing against men and putting up 30+ point seasons.

Kravtsov is doing well in KHL. The issue with him was that he would rather play in the KHL than AHL. That doesn't take away his skill set and the tools he can bring to help your club. You just have to make sure that he is committed to staying and won't run back to Russia if he's unhappy. So you do your due diligence if you want to acquire him.

You're complaining about two guys who are 21 and 22 years old. These aren't guys in their late 20's here.

You're debating on Lundkvist and Kravtsov specifically. But this goes for any team. Some trades will be just picks. Some trades will be picks and prospects. Some trades will include a cap dump.

 

[vokiel]

First, regarding Pelletier. You're looking to relieve some cap space. You're able to trade someone with term without needing to retain salary. You really think the team that is taking 100% of the guy's contract will give you a 1st AND their top prospect? You're dreaming in colors if you think the Flames would offer a 1st and their top prospect to help you save on the cap for the next few years.

No they could have given Pelletier, Pitlick and a 2nd. That looks like the Suzuki trade adjusted down to Toffoli.

I don't care what the reasons are for the prospects not performing in the NHL. They eventually look like projects not because they are doing "well" in their development. It's because they're getting passed over by subsequent draft picks. Even if Kravstov and Lundkvist are progressing, if they're getting passed by other draftees, they fall behind. That's for sure, there's nothing mystical about it.

 

[Archijerej]

This GM, has already done something the last didn't in 10 years............get a 1st round pick in a trade.
On the job what 3 weeks? If we gave Bergevin 10 years, surely we can give Hughie 5-6 months to show us some more of his work.

Bergevin acquired Danault and Suzuki. Don't know why it's something less honourable than a 1st round pick.

 

[Milhouse40]

It is smart because you also get some players that are ahead in their development. So you don't only get picks and wait even longer for them to develop.

You get picks for players that will come in later and prospects that will come in sooner.

I have a question for you: was it dumb of Bergevin to acquire Suzuki in the trade for Pacioretty and not JUST picks? Or is it wrong of him to get Nick and he should have just gotten picks?

And in this case specially, we already have 12 picks this year, 8 next year.
In the last 4 years we drafted 9, 8, 10 and 11 players.

And we will obviously get a couple more but prospects to add to the pools that is already there like Suzuki, Caufield, Romanov, Poehling and those probably coming next year like Guhle, Harris, Ylonen, next year's top pick, Heineman Norlinder, Pezzetta .....we need to add to that mix. Adding some prospect ready to make camp with them next year like Heineman would be the perfect scenario.

 

[Merci Saku]

No they could have given Pelletier, Pitlick and a 2nd. That looks like the Suzuki trade adjusted down to Toffoli.

I don't care what the reasons are for the prospects not performing in the NHL. They eventually look like projects not because they are doing "well" in their development. It's because they're getting passed over by subsequent draft picks. Even if Kravstov and Lundkvist are progressing, if they're getting passed by other draftees, they fall behind. That's for sure, there's nothing mystical about it.

No they couldn’t

Would you have given up that for Toffoli? Hell no

we all like Toffoli here but don’t criticize management for non sense

 

[Adam Michaels]

This is from The Athletic:

The 6-foot-3 winger flashed high-end skill and crafty passing ability with the Rangers but wasn’t able to showcase a complete package or contribute consistent production, as he notched just four points in 20 games. Furthermore, his defensive game and commitment away from the puck were glaring issues that caused New York to get dominated territorially and in terms of goals against with him on the ice.
This is where teams have to make a crucial assessment. Has Kravtsov struggled because he hasn’t been put in a position to succeed (he spent most of his 20 games on the fourth line centred by Kevin Rooney plus got no consistent power-play time) or is this a case of a player whose enticing skill will never translate consistently in an NHL environment?
On the one hand, the Rangers have a poor track record for developing forwards but on the other, Kravtsov is already 22 and still couldn’t crack an NHL lineup out of training camp

I brought this up in the Bobrov/Lecavalier hiring thread. When we look at Bobrov's track record, it might not be a resume that brings a lot of confidence, but I mentioned that the Rangers may have an issue with development.

They have a consensus #1 pick in Lafrenière. They have a consensus #2 pick in Kakko. They have Kravtsov, who most draft lists had him around the 10th pick (he was taken 8th).

I listed their top scorers in the other thread. And they are either acquired via trade or signed as a UFA. Only Kreider is a Rangers draft pick among the top scorers.

Laf and Kakko so far are not displaying the makings of a 1st & 2nd overall, respectively. Kravtsov might be a particular case of a player who preferred to play in the KHL than the AHL. But when he was brought in to the Rangers, he was not put in a position to show what he can really do.

So it's the chicken and the egg debate we've had forever here in Montreal. Is it the drafting or the development that is the issue in New York?

 

[vokiel]

No they couldn’t

Would you have given up that for Toffoli? Hell no

we all like Toffoli here but don’t criticize management for non sense

Maybe... Probably not. Not in the middle of the season for sure. I was just illustrating what a trade for a prospect who is ahead would end up looking like as a parallel to Suzuki. Suzuki wasn't acquired for a UFA TDL guy, so the comparison is figurative. You won't get similar prospects for Chiarot or any other UFA we have.

Another way to see it: Kravtsov and Lundkvist are prospects who lost value over time, unlike Suzuki and Pelletier.

 

[Adam Michaels]

No they could have given Pelletier, Pitlick and a 2nd. That looks like the Suzuki trade adjusted down to Toffoli.

I don't care what the reasons are for the prospects not performing in the NHL. They eventually look like projects not because they are doing "well" in their development. It's because they're getting passed over by subsequent draft picks. Even if Kravstov and Lundkvist are progressing, if they're getting passed by other draftees, they fall behind. That's for sure, there's nothing mystical about it.

They DID NOT want to add Pelletier. He was an untouchable. You could have said you'll take a 2nd pick instead. The Flames would still not give Pelletier.

 

[vokiel]

They DID NOT want to add Pelletier. He was an untouchable. You could have said you'll take a 2nd pick instead. The Flames would still not give Pelletier.

You're changing the subject

 

[Beendair Donedat]

It is smart because you also get some players that are ahead in their development. So you don't only get picks and wait even longer for them to develop.

You get picks for players that will come in later and prospects that will come in sooner.

I have a question for you: was it dumb of Bergevin to acquire Suzuki in the trade for Pacioretty and not JUST picks? Or is it wrong of him to get Nick and he should have just gotten picks?

The question is more than a little disingenuous. And you’re using an example that’s not really fair given that Pacioretty was going to command a top prospect return as an elite goal scorer in the NHL going to a team that was in “win now” mode.

Ben Chiarot doesn’t garner the high end prospect return. He is worth a mid to late first though for a team that needs defensive help and thinks that he can help put them over. It’s comparing apples to oranges, Patches gets the high end prospect package because he’s an elite player. Chiarot gets a first from a team that’s willing to gamble that pick is worth the sacrifice.

That’s how I see it anyway, I may be wrong.

 

[HomaridII]

I brought this up in the Bobrov/Lecavalier hiring thread. When we look at Bobrov's track record, it might not be a resume that brings a lot of confidence, but I mentioned that the Rangers may have an issue with development.

They have a consensus #1 pick in Lafrenière. They have a consensus #2 pick in Kakko. They have Kravtsov, who most draft lists had him around the 10th pick (he was taken 8th).

I listed their top scorers in the other thread. And they are either acquired via trade or signed as a UFA. Only Kreider is a Rangers draft pick among the top scorers.

Laf and Kakko so far are not displaying the makings of a 1st & 2nd overall, respectively. Kravtsov might be a particular case of a player who preferred to play in the KHL than the AHL. But when he was brought in to the Rangers, he was not put in a position to show what he can really do.

So it's the chicken and the egg debate we've had forever here in Montreal. Is it the drafting or the development that is the issue in New York?

I think we have a clear example here in mtl with Caufield. Last game he played 21 mins, career high. He is on the first line, first pp line, first off in OT. Clearly he is trusted and has been told to use his skills VS 1 goal in 45 games under dd, fourth line, barely any pp time etc

I would take the risk on kravstov, his ceiling is too high, but not as the main centerpiece of a trade. We have room now for him in our top 6 and theorically can give him a chance start of next season.

 

[Adam Michaels]

You're changing the subject

I don't know what to tell you. You see it in a tunnel vision way.

 

[Milhouse40]

No they could have given Pelletier, Pitlick and a 2nd. That looks like the Suzuki trade adjusted down to Toffoli.

I don't care what the reasons are for the prospects not performing in the NHL. They eventually look like projects not because they are doing "well" in their development. It's because they're getting passed over by subsequent draft picks. Even if Kravstov and Lundkvist are progressing, if they're getting passed by other draftees, they fall behind. That's for sure, there's nothing mystical about it.

Lundkvist is playing behind Trouba and Fox on the right side and Schneider passed him....another higher 1st round pick and his game is more what the Rangers needs considering they already have their big offensive guy in Fox.

As for Kravtsov, it might be the same thing too (and Lafreniere too for that matter)....at some point, if you ain't getting the opportunity.....it's not easy to get the offensive minute when you have a Panarin on the team.

Pacioretty was shit on the bottom lines but a top player on the top line.
Danault was nowhere to be found on the bottom 6, top 6 minutes and the production followed.
Toffoli was a 40-50 points in the middle-six, got first line minute here and his production jump.

 

[Adam Michaels]

And in this case specially, we already have 12 picks this year, 8 next year.
In the last 4 years we drafted 9, 8, 10 and 11 players.

And we will obviously get a couple more but prospects to add to the pools that is already there like Suzuki, Caufield, Romanov, Poehling and those probably coming next year like Guhle, Harris, Ylonen, next year's top pick, Heineman Norlinder, Pezzetta .....we need to add to that mix. Adding some prospect ready to make camp with them next year like Heineman would be the perfect scenario.

Exactly.

And it's not like they won't get any more picks.

They'll end up trading some other guys by next year's deadline and will be able to acquire more picks and prospects.

 

[Adam Michaels]

I think we have a clear example here in mtl with Caufield. Last game he played 21 mins, career high. He is on the first line, first pp line, first off in OT. Clearly he is trusted and has been told to use his skills VS 1 goal in 45 games under dd, fourth line, barely any pp time etc

I would take the risk on kravstov, his ceiling is too high, but not as the main centerpiece of a trade. We have room now for him in our top 6 and theorically can give him a chance start of next season.

It's the way I see it for Kravtsov IF he is part of any trade Habs make with the Rangers. That his skill set could be a fit in the more offensive minded game the Habs want to implement here.

Rangers have Panarin (signed until 2025-26), Zibanejad (signed until 2029-30), Kreider (signed until 2026-27), Strome (who is a UFA and might be extended), Goodrow (signed until 2026-27), they havd Laf & Kakko (who are both due an extension). These are all guys that are currently ahead of Kravtsov in the depth chart. There isn't room for him there in any offensive role.

In Montreal, there is.

 

[Mandalorian]

I have no issue with Kravtsov as long as he isn’t the main piece of the deal, he has done anything since the draft that is worth passing on a 1st or top prospect like scheinder.

And what pieces does Montreal have to get a top prospect like Schneider exactly? Please don't tell me Chiarot or Lekhonen.

 

[Hins77]

Lunkvist would be a nice get. Just looking his sweden stats. He is really closer to be a top4 dman than a guy like Norlinder. There is just no conparison to make here

 

[vokiel]

Lundkvist is playing behind Trouba and Fox on the right side and Schneider passed him....another higher 1st round pick and his game is more what the Rangers needs considering they already have their big offensive guy in Fox.

As for Kravtsov, it might be the same thing too (and Lafreniere too for that matter)....at some point, if you ain't getting the opportunity.....it's not easy to get the offensive minute when you have a Panarin on the team.

Pacioretty was shit on the bottom lines but a top player on the top line.
Danault was nowhere to be found on the bottom 6, top 6 minutes and the production followed.
Toffoli was a 40-50 points in the middle-six, got first line minute here and his production jump.

Yeah I understand that, except it doesn't really affect things positively without putting some spin to it. That's when GMs make their mistakes imho, they value the spin and potential more than what the players are. Lundkvist is the most interesting of the 2, at 21, in the AHL, he has time. Couldn't we get a younger Lundkvist with a late first in 2022? How about in 2023?

I still would rather get picks, move some of the failures we drafted in those insane drafts listed above and restart the engine with better player development.

 

[Schooner Guy]

Lunkvist would be a nice get. Just looking his sweden stats. He is really closer to be a top4 dman than a guy like Norlinder. There is just no conparison to make here

Also Lundkvist is a RD. They're harder to come by and are good assets to have.

 

[HomaridII]

Armia not on the ice for the skate. Chiarot skating.

 

[vokiel]

Armia not on the ice for the skate. Chiarot skating.

Have no idea who would think about using Armia before one of their own.

I don't know what to tell you. You see it in a tunnel vision way.

What I see is an unconvincing sales pitch because either the prospects coveted have more value than what we're offering (Chiarot) or because if we're getting them it means they're not that great to begin. The latter applying more to Kravstov.

So I'm slicing it up by saying we get a first rounder and we argue on younger picks.

Do I end up in a FU fight with Gorgon ?

 

[Sterling Archer]

Armia not on the ice for the skate. Chiarot skating.

He was the least used forward last game. Maybe benching him? Doubt anyone trades for him and his terrible contract.

 

[BLONG7]

Bergevin acquired Danault and Suzuki. Don't know why it's something less honourable than a 1st round pick.

Good point, but it was his mantra to build through the draft, and he never did....we were talking about the draft though, not his trades, so............
He would never take the right approach to pick a direction, so bottom line was he never acquired a 1st.

 

[Draft]

Yeah I understand that, except it doesn't really affect things positively without putting some spin to it. That's when GMs make their mistakes imho, they value the spin and potential more than what the players are. Lundkvist is the most interesting of the 2, at 21, in the AHL, he has time. Couldn't we get a younger Lundkvist with a late first in 2022? How about in 2023?

I still would rather get picks, move some of the failures we drafted in those insane drafts listed above and restart the engine with better player development.

From point of draft, most young defenceman - outside of an elite few - are 4-6 years from being reliable impact players in the NHL. If the team can turn this around in less time, they will.

 

[morhilane]

I didn't follow his tenure in North America closely. Does anyone know what happened and why he went back to the KHL? Did he fall out of favour with the Rangers? Would he want to come back to NA?

From what I read the last few days, he had a falling out with the AHL coaches the first time he was send down there (I don't know the specifics). He went back to the KHL this season when they wanted to send him back down to the AHL for a "reconditioning" stint...

So either his problem is with the coaches or he only want to play in the NHL or the KHL.

He still need development, and the Rangers aren't committed to that in the NHL. Unlike the Habs with MSL, the pee-wee coach...