Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Trade Proposal Thread: Part 77

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Kent Nilsson said:
Meh. His ceiling is a Chiarot level type of D. You can find those on the UFA market every year. Right now he can be signed for cheap which raises his value. I dont think he’s a mega important core piece going forward.
Click to expand...
I believe he is already faster and better than Chiarot. He also has contagious leadership.

He dont probably dont have 1D ceiling but he is an awesome teammates and we also need mobile, punishing D like him on our second pair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrom
Kent Nilsson said:
Meh. His ceiling is a Chiarot level type of D. You can find those on the UFA market every year. Right now he can be signed for cheap which raises his value. I dont think he’s a mega important core piece going forward.
Click to expand...
That’s about as woefully terrible take on Romanov as I’ve ever heard. Not for anything but that hot take removes any credibility from your posts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Rapala and Beer and Chips
Jaynki said:
I believe he is already faster and better than Chiarot. He also has contagious leadership.

He dont probably dont have 1D ceiling but he is an awesome teammates and we also need mobile, punishing D like him on our second pair.
Click to expand...

Romanov is far from having reached the level of playoffs beast Chiarot did with us. Chiarot also has more reach/size and Romanov will never be as strong.

I mean Romanov is alright but disposable.

Sterling Archer said:
That’s about as woefully terrible a take on Romanov as I’ve ever heard. Not for anything but that hot take removes any credibility from your posts.
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
Kent Nilsson said:
Romanov is far from having reached the level of playoffs beast Chiarot did with us. Chiarot also has more reach/size and Romanov will never be as strong.

I mean Romanov is alright but disposable.



Okay.
Click to expand...
He’s TWENTY TWO! And he’s already leading the time in ice time and playing top two minutes for a defencman who’s new to North America. Give your head a shake, man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rapala, McGuires Corndog, Doc5 and 4 others
78D819C6-DA24-4526-A3FC-116A8A465C5F.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sterling Archer
Benstheman said:
2024 no. 2023 yeah if you can get something unprotected or partly so. For Philly’s 2023 1st (top 5 protected) would be interesting. I wouldn’t do it top 10 protected though.
Click to expand...
GM's aren't trading picks in 2023, or future. Some of you are dreaming if you think he's worth top 6 pick in 1st round or top 15.

Scorey Perry said:
Way speed is dominating in playoffs at trade deadline we should get good return on Drouin and Bryon. Both can fly and Habs be in position to retain on expiring contracts.
Click to expand...
Speed isn't why GM's trade for players. Everyone knows what a 4th line player looks like in Byron, and drouin needs to prove himself before having any value
 
  • Like
Reactions: McPhees Moustache and 26Mats
Vachon23 said:
Lehkonen and Chairot, it was predictable. Past players that are comparable to them (Savard/Coleman/Goodrow) and where rentals at the TDL got that type of return. I was surprise for Kulak though.

The precedent for players like Petry (35 + at 5m and + with multiple years), is that the return is never really good.
Click to expand...

I think Petry will have to have a good year this year to get his value up. GM's tend to be short sighted - especially around TDL, and especially if Hughes is willing to retain.

If Hughes isn't willing to retain, may have to wait until next offseason to get full value in a trade - again, provided Petry has a bounce back season in a full season without Ducharme as his coach.
 
26Mats said:
I think Petry will have to have a good year this year to get his value up. GM's tend to be short sighted - especially around TDL, and especially if Hughes is willing to retain.

If Hughes isn't willing to retain, may have to wait until next offseason to get full value in a trade - again, provided Petry has a bounce back season in a full season without Ducharme as his coach.
Click to expand...
Hughes already said that he won’t retain for Petry. It’s extremely rare that GM retain on multiple years contract.

At 35 Dmen usually start to regress so his value could go down to if he’s hit by the 35 yrs bar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heineman Mineman and Sterling Archer
Vachon23 said:
Hughes already said that he won’t retain for Petry. It’s extremely rare that GM retain on multiple years contract.

At 35 Dmen usually start to regress so his value could go down to if he’s hit by the 35 yrs bar.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why I think he'll have to have a good season next season to get his value up. I doubt his value is good now...

But Hughes says things, and then changes his game plan as he sees the landscape. He said he hoped to attract good free agents this summer, then saw he couldn't move out contracts to have cap space, so now says expect lesser free agents. He said he wasn't going to call what he was going to do a rebuild, then he saw this team wasn't going to be good fast. I think it's pretty clear he's doing a rebuild...

At any rate, whether he ends up being willing to retain on Petry or not is very secondary to Petry having to prove he still has it at 35, when it comes to getting his trade value up.

I am starting to think though, that Hughes may see Guhle, Harris, and Barron as highly likely ready for MTL, so he wants Petry moved to ensure each has a spot... though D'amico made a good point on tsn690, that Guhle developed his offensive game really well this year. May be best to keep him in Laval to start the year, to continue to develop the offensive aspect of his game at the pro level before the NHL.
 
Last edited:
Sterling Archer said:
That’s about as woefully terrible take on Romanov as I’ve ever heard. Not for anything but that hot take removes any credibility from your posts.
Click to expand...
> Calls someone out for a “woefully” bad take
Sterling Archer said:
He’s TWENTY TWO! And he’s already leading the time in ice time and playing top two minutes for a defencman who’s new to North America. Give your head a shake, man.
Click to expand...
> Uses TOI on the 32nd team + age to back it up

lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaladin and Kent Nilsson
Adam Michaels said:
It's the same as everyone (including Habs fans) thinking that Habs would need to sweeten the pot in order to get rid of Weber's contract. As we saw, Habs didn't attach a pick or a prospect to the deal.
Click to expand...
They did. Vegas was willing to attach a 2nd round pick to get rid of Dadonov's contract 3 months ago in the failed trade to Anaheim. Presumably Montreal could have received a draft pick from Vegas to take Dadonov's contract, but instead they chose to make Vegas take Weber's contract. So essentially Weber cost Montreal whatever draft pick Vegas would have otherwise given them to take Dadonov.
 
Inspiration said:
They did. Vegas was willing to attach a 2nd round pick to get rid of Dadonov's contract 3 months ago in the failed trade to Anaheim. Presumably Montreal could have received a draft pick from Vegas to take Dadonov's contract, but instead they chose to make Vegas take Weber's contract. So essentially Weber cost Montreal whatever draft pick Vegas would have otherwise given them to take Dadonov.
Click to expand...
You realize Dadonov at the deadline is a lot different from now right?
 
Inspiration said:
They did. Vegas was willing to attach a 2nd round pick to get rid of Dadonov's contract 3 months ago in the failed trade to Anaheim. Presumably Montreal could have received a draft pick from Vegas to take Dadonov's contract, but instead they chose to make Vegas take Weber's contract. So essentially Weber cost Montreal whatever draft pick Vegas would have otherwise given them to take Dadonov.
Click to expand...

They didn't sweeten the pot.

Did Habs send a pick or a prospect to Vegas to get rid of Weber's contract?
 
Inspiration said:
They did. Vegas was willing to attach a 2nd round pick to get rid of Dadonov's contract 3 months ago in the failed trade to Anaheim. Presumably Montreal could have received a draft pick from Vegas to take Dadonov's contract, but instead they chose to make Vegas take Weber's contract. So essentially Weber cost Montreal whatever draft pick Vegas would have otherwise given them to take Dadonov.
Click to expand...
Dadonov did have negative value at that time, but mostly because Vegas was absolutely f***ed cap wise and had to do anything to play their stars. He still does have negative value in my opinion, but at the deadline when we retain 50%, he will have positive value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoelWarlord, nicehiss, McPhees Moustache and 1 other person
Adam Michaels said:
They didn't sweeten the pot.

Did Habs send a pick or a prospect to Vegas to get rid of Weber's contract?
Click to expand...
They took back a contract that right now probably has negative value. But, depending on how Dadonov plays and his production, could turn back into positive value.

I don't think Dadonov is worth 5M against the cap, and we'll have to shed salary to fit him under it. So having his contract likely makes our roster worse to start the season. For example we may have to move Petry for futures and sign a cheap D replacement, or move Anderson for futures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McPhees Moustache
Adam Michaels said:
That is not sweetening the pot.

Sweetening the pot means you attach a draft pick or a prospect in order to get rid of a player/contract.
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to semantics whether adding a positive or taking back a negative are considered sweetners, as both make the deal sweeter for your trade partner.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom