Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Rumours


kinot-2
 Share

Recommended Posts

More news pieces:

- Jack Johnson placed on waivers by Pens

- Dreger reports Klefbom likely to have surgery and be out long-term

- Niskanen rumored to be retiring (maybe he's scared of having to face Gallagher next year). Good riddance to a dirty player.

- Donato traded to SJ for a 3rd rounder and Dubnyk to SJ for a 5th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

If I were the Lightning, I'd definitely be looking to move Stamkos. He's been hurt so often and they essentially won a Cup without him. Moving his salary maybe saves you from moving two other players. I'm not sure about the return. He's getting up there in age (he'll be 31 during the upcoming season) and is still owed 8.5M a year, so he's a risk IMO. Is someone willing to pay Stamkos 8.5M a year to play half seasons? I absolutely believe there will be takers for trading for him. Are they going to get a big haul back? Not so sure, especially with the cap no longer expected to increase and GM's scrambling for cap space and especially with TB unable to take any much cap hit back. If you look at the Habs as a potential trade partner, for example, we're likely not trading an established big contract (or upcoming big contract) like Gallagher or Danault or Drouin or so on. We're likely not going to want to trade a younger, cheaper established NHLer like Suzuki or JK. So we're probably looking at something like a 1st rounder and maybe a prospect or two. It would be a bit like us trying to trade Weber or Price... I think we could expect to get back a good prospect/pick or two but we're not going to see a return like what Matt Duchene brought back (that's what I would call a haul)..

 

I think it depends on the team. If you're already a top 5-7 team & can add Stamkos, you may well part with high end prospects. I agree you likely wouldnt get an established young player like suzuki (and we're not actually in an ideal position to trade for him) but assuming we were - i think TB could probably get something like Tatar / Caufield / 1st / Brook type of haul for Stamkos. Again, we're NOT a team that I think would want him, but using us based on how people on here understand the value of our prospects. 

You get 2 very solid prospects, a 1st rounder and an established middle 6 player.  If you're tampa that helps you on a few fronts.   Doubt they'll do it though. His injury history lately would really concern me. 

 

20 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

More news pieces:

- Jack Johnson placed on waivers by Pens

- Dreger reports Klefbom likely to have surgery and be out long-term

- Niskanen rumored to be retiring (maybe he's scared of having to face Gallagher next year). Good riddance to a dirty player.

- Donato traded to SJ for a 3rd rounder and Dubnyk to SJ for a 5th.

Every time I hear Jack Johnson's name I think "man we dodged a bullet there" because I thought for sure MB would have gone after him. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

I think it depends on the team. If you're already a top 5-7 team & can add Stamkos, you may well part with high end prospects. i think TB could probably get something like Tatar / Caufield / 1st / Brook type of haul for Stamkos. 
You get 2 very solid prospects, a 1st rounder and an established middle 6 player.  If you're tampa that helps you on a few fronts.   Doubt they'll do it though. His injury history lately would really concern me. 

Every time I hear Jack Johnson's name I think "man we dodged a bullet there" because I thought for sure MB would have gone after him. 

So Rutherford a very experienced gm and 3 time Stanley Cup winning gm also made an Alzner type 5 year mistake in signing free agent Jack Johnson and getting sweet diddly in performance- I’m not defending Bergevin - merely pointing out that free agent duds can happen to even top gms who try to reach too much. 
Your point about top 5-7 teams trading for established veterans like Stamkos and giving away draft choices and prospects, I totally accept. Where I’m fearful is Bergevin abandoning what I believe is a youth movement    with blossoming last 2 years of draft picks and thinking we are close. A 10 game qualifying round where perhaps we handled the off ice bubble better, is not enough evidence that we are solid contenders. Everyone knows my position now, get good draft prospects this year and patch/swing for the fences next year when the Kraken draft / salary cap picture becomes more clear. I’d love some parts now but not at the expense of significant prospect / draft choices 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, claremont said:

So Rutherford a very experienced gm and 3 time Stanley Cup winning gm also made an Alzner type 5 year mistake in signing free agent Jack Johnson and getting sweet diddly in performance- I’m not defending Bergevin - merely pointing out that free agent duds can happen to even top gms who try to reach too much. 

No disagreement from me here. In fact, I am often quick to point out that there are a lot of GMs out there who are just as bad (or worse).  Bergevin has his strengths (trades, contracts) but I feel he lacks a 'big picture' ability - at least at this stage - and some of his talent evaluation seems very skewed. 

One thing that fans of a particular team often forget is that you cant measure your team against 30 other teams collectively. For example, people get upset when we draft a bust or miss a potential star but every team does this. in 2015 Boston didnt have one, or even two draft picks in the 1st round... they had 3.  #13, 14 AND 15 - and this was considered a deep draft.    They didnt select Barzal (16th) or Connor (17th) or Chabot (18th). Brock Boeser went 23rd.  Even Konecny, Colin White, Beauvillier or Roslovic would have been better choices than Zboril (2 nhl games) or Senyshyn (6 nhl games).   They did manage DeBrusk with one of those picks but he's a far cry from Barzal, Boeser, Chabot or Connor.  

 

 

34 minutes ago, claremont said:

Your point about top 5-7 teams trading for established veterans like Stamkos and giving away draft choices and prospects, I totally accept. Where I’m fearful is Bergevin abandoning what I believe is a youth movement    with blossoming last 2 years of draft picks and thinking we are close. A 10 game qualifying round where perhaps we handled the off ice bubble better, is not enough evidence that we are solid contenders. Everyone knows my position now, get good draft prospects this year and patch/swing for the fences next year when the Kraken draft / salary cap picture becomes more clear. I’d love some parts now but not at the expense of significant prospect / draft choices 

Agree. I find it a little troublesome.  But then I also think we should be moving at least one of Weber or Petry while they still have value.  Does anyone (aside from MB) think that either of those guys will be top pairing Dmen when Suzuki, JK, Caufield, Romanov and CO. are hitting their full strides? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

Agree. I find it a little troublesome.  But then I also think we should be moving at least one of Weber or Petry while they still have value.  Does anyone (aside from MB) think that either of those guys will be top pairing Dmen when Suzuki, JK, Caufield, Romanov and CO. are hitting their full strides? 

To answer your question, I believe Weber slides to a 3-4 pairing and has leadership value IMO for this coming season and next. So if you could trade his contract (it’s a weird one that I described earlier as big cap hit but largely cash paid upfront to him) to a cash starved team like Arizona or Florida then ok. If he got claimed in the Kraken draft Despite getting nothing for him, the cap room is favourable for a replacement. Interesting to hear Bergevin comment that Romanov has mostly played right side D despite being a left hand shot so how Alexander plays will dictate which side he is on. A right side with Petry, Juulsen / Fleury / Brook and Romanov should still be solid for 3 years out. (Answering your question - I see Petry having 3 years of top pairing value) . Left side would really need a Norlinder / Struble to step up if Romanov went to the right side, coupled with Edmundson and Chiarot / Kulak or Jordan Harris. I don’t see Mete even Kulak as part of any solution and hope they could package either with a 2nd round pick to move up in the draft for a pick in the range 25-40. (Would love to get Jacob Perreault). I’d package Weal in a heartbeat - I’m not sold on Armia for the long term but power wingers are in short supply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francois Gagnon said he wouldn't hesitate to trade our 1st rounder to NJ for Kyle Palmieri, which means it should not be something we consider at all, since Gagnon is often times backwards and is a horrible assessor of the Habs. He's still a Nords and Sens fan after all, and he almost always sides with the refs/league/opposition against us.

Nothing against Palmieri. I'd look at him as a target for us. But he's going to be 30 soon and he's on an expiring contract. With the next season in doubt, are we really giving up a 1st rounder for a guy who may play one season or part of one season for us? I wouldn't. I have zero interest in acquiring anyone who is an impending UFA given the uncertainty of next season. To suggest we give up our 1st rounder for someone like that is just stupid. You want to give up a first to go out and get a Laine or Ehlers or so on makes more sense, but not for a rental. Even Bergevin seemed to get that, shaking my head at Gagnon's ridiculous suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, H_T_L said:
Montreal showed interest in Simmonds last July but wasn't ready to pay what NJ did ($5M aav). It wouldn't surprise me if Habs circled back on Simmonds again at least to see. (bottom six role?). Simmonds told me last month it's the best he's felt physically in 2 yrs

Ohh great just what we need, another player in his declining years that is slow with little offensive skills to play on our 4th line.  It's not like he hits, fights or does any of the intangibles anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

With the next season in doubt, are we really giving up a 1st rounder for a guy who may play one season or part of one season for us?

This.  I have no problem trading a 1st for (or as part of a package for) a quality RW but i would hope it was someone under the age of say 27.  Doesnt mean a 30 year old couldnt have value still but it doesnt jive with the overall peak-time for this roster.  I mean is Palmari really that much better than Dananov or Hoffman - both of whom could be had for no assets. 

 

2 hours ago, H_T_L said:
Montreal showed interest in Simmonds last July but wasn't ready to pay what NJ did ($5M aav). It wouldn't surprise me if Habs circled back on Simmonds again at least to see. (bottom six role?). Simmonds told me last month it's the best he's felt physically in 2 yrs

Ideally we come out of this summer with a top line RW to push everyone down a rung. Instead I think MB will do his typica "quantity over quality" schtick and get us Kovalchuk and Simmonds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

This.  I have no problem trading a 1st for (or as part of a package for) a quality RW but i would hope it was someone under the age of say 27.  Doesnt mean a 30 year old couldnt have value still but it doesnt jive with the overall peak-time for this roster.  I mean is Palmari really that much better than Dananov or Hoffman - both of whom could be had for no assets. 

 

Ideally we come out of this summer with a top line RW to push everyone down a rung. Instead I think MB will do his typica "quantity over quality" schtick and get us Kovalchuk and Simmonds. 

I'm hoping you're wrong, but then I read this:

LeBrun said he believes that Habs GM Marc Bergevin likes what Simmonds brings and that he’s identified the forward as someone who can add power and character to his team. A smaller Canadiens roster could use the size. And, LeBrun adds the Canadiens can dangle power play time as an incentive.

Please no!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, electron58 said:

I'm hoping you're wrong, but then I read this:

LeBrun said he believes that Habs GM Marc Bergevin likes what Simmonds brings and that he’s identified the forward as someone who can add power and character to his team. A smaller Canadiens roster could use the size. And, LeBrun adds the Canadiens can dangle power play time as an incentive.

Please no!

i mean i dont see why Simmonds would hurt us at minimum contract. So long as he's paid like a bottom 6 forward, or its a one year deal, I think he can help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, habsisme said:

i mean i dont see why Simmonds would hurt us at minimum contract. So long as he's paid like a bottom 6 forward, or its a one year deal, I think he can help

Even at $700K, he is taking a roster spot. He is slow, slow, slow. I'd rather Poehling, or sign Craig Smith.  At least he can move up and down the line up, good two way center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy made 5 mill last year (overpaid). That's a big drop to league minimum if that's what he signs for. Leafs are also rumoured to be kicking the tires. My hope is that he's not signed simply as another one of MB's consolation prizes for failing to get the guy we actually need. Better not be for more then a year if it does happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

The guy made 5 mill last year (overpaid). That's a big drop to league minimum if that's what he signs for. Leafs are also rumoured to be kicking the tires. My hope is that he's not signed simply as another one of MB's consolation prizes for failing to get the guy we actually need. Better not be for more then a year if it does happen.

I'm thinking that he goes to the Leafs.  Isn't he from the Toronto area? Thought that was mentioned somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, habsisme said:

i mean i dont see why Simmonds would hurt us at minimum contract. So long as he's paid like a bottom 6 forward, or its a one year deal, I think he can help

Ideally we need to add 2 right wings.   In a perfect world one of those guys would be our best RW (Ie Laine). I dont mind if the second one is Kovalchuk or Simmonds - to play behind Gallagher and Armia.   I assume that either would take $2m or less on a 1-2 year deal.  

I fear that we will just sign both and no real "impact" guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, electron58 said:

I'm thinking that he goes to the Leafs.  Isn't he from the Toronto area? Thought that was mentioned somewhere.

I don't see where Bergevin thinks Simmonds would be a fit on an up tempo fast skating club other than PP time in front of the net  ....I'd rather get Anderson  who has wheels ...Toronto can pick up Alzner and Simmonds to play with Spezza for no money and no skating 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Ideally we need to add 2 right wings.   In a perfect world one of those guys would be our best RW (Ie Laine). I dont mind if the second one is Kovalchuk or Simmonds - to play behind Gallagher and Armia.   I assume that either would take $2m or less on a 1-2 year deal.  

I fear that we will just sign both and no real "impact" guy. 

i'd rather the impact guy too, no question but there has to be a guy available at a reasonable price. MB can't just do it on his own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, arpem-can said:

I don't see where Bergevin thinks Simmonds would be a fit on an up tempo fast skating club other than PP time in front of the net  ....I'd rather get Anderson  who has wheels ...Toronto can pick up Alzner and Simmonds to play with Spezza for no money and no skating 

Could you imagine their goalie, Anderson, facing all those shots?  even more than last year? Be fun to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, habsisme said:

ty! I would definitely have interest in him at the right price, 40 points in 66 games

I’d absolutely covet Duclair in a Habs lineup - if he can snipe 23 goals on a crappy sens team, he’s got value as a LW on our team. If he wants a raise over his $1.675M contract last year then we have to ask at what cost and expose him or Byron $3.4M or Lehkonen $2.4M in the Kraken draft next year. I think Ottawa is just being cheap - he’s young, and has speed - I don’t think a 3 year deal would be a mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...