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

Rumours


kinot-2
 Share

Recommended Posts

No trade rumors in a while. There has to be a couple of small moves to get under the cap before the season starts. Any speculation on what might happen. I still think kovalchuk is coming back. Do you think we keep Danault?  or do we trade him?  or what might happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, xxdocxx said:

No trade rumors in a while. There has to be a couple of small moves to get under the cap before the season starts. Any speculation on what might happen. I still think kovalchuk is coming back. Do you think we keep Danault?  or do we trade him?  or what might happen.

We are nearly 400k under the cap already (and can be further under by burying roughly 80% of Weal's salary in the minors) but that does leave our roster rather limited in terms of number of bodies.  Right now we have 21 players on our active roster.   We could bury Weal and bring up Poehling and Evans I believe (although it would be very very tight against the cap).

in a perfect world, we'd move Byron. I like him, he's a useful player but he's honestly probably our 11-13th forward at this point. At $3.4m thats just too much for that spot.   

Id be shocked if Danault was moved - yet.   If they had kept Domi, maybe but right now Danault is the only insurance if one of our young centres falters.   Our other centres are Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Evans and Poehling.  Not a lot of experience there. If the young guys take off flying & it looks like we have some confidence there then I could see Danault moved during the season. I could also see him being extended. At his age, it wouldnt be a terrible move, assuming he's not asking for too much $ and he is willing to play further down the lineup if the young guys continue to improve. 

Id also be quite surprised if Kovalchuk came back. If we hadnt signed Anderson and Toffoli maybe but the spots are limited.     Now, if MB decides to move someone like say, Drouin then absolutely there's a chance Kovy comes back but honestly i think this is pretty much the roster you're going to see opening night. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Rumours are swirling that Patches is back on the trade block, wonder what you would give up to get him back or if you would even consider trading for him.

I think due to the Vegas cap situation and our own cap situation you could probably offer something like Armia + Fleury + 2nd with Vegas retaining 1.5 Mil anything more from our side may not be worth it. Also we would have to move Edmundson and Byron for picks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Rumours are swirling that Patches is back on the trade block, wonder what you would give up to get him back or if you would even consider trading for him.

I think due to the Vegas cap situation and our own cap situation you could probably offer something like Armia + Fleury + 2nd with Vegas retaining 1.5 Mil anything more from our side may not be worth it. Also we would have to move Edmundson and Byron for picks. 

There is no way I would include Armia in any trade.  I think he brings a much needed physical element to the team and is good in all situations.  And really I like having Edmunson in the line up, granted is a bottom pairing dman but he is excited to be in MTL and is looking forward to playing here.  Given a chance he could very well surprise us fans if his enthusiasm translates to how he plays.

 

As for Patches, not really interested in having him in our lineup, he is too soft and really doesn't play a 200ft game very well.  Think that type of player would be a detriment to our young players development

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

There is no way I would include Armia in any trade.  I think he brings a much needed physical element to the team and is good in all situations.  And really I like having Edmunson in the line up, granted is a bottom pairing dman but he is excited to be in MTL and is looking forward to playing here.  Given a chance he could very well surprise us fans if his enthusiasm translates to how he plays.

 

As for Patches, not really interested in having him in our lineup, he is too soft and really doesn't play a 200ft game very well.  Think that type of player would be a detriment to our young players development

Patches is soft and doesn't play a 200 foot game you are definitely right there. However Armia is great but we could simply call up either Poehling or Yelonen to fill his role for less money. Patches also offers something that no one else on the team other than Gally offers and that is 30+ goal potential. Imagine a lineup of

Patches-Zuke-Anderson

Tatar-Danault-Gallagher

Drouin-Kotkaniemi-Taffoli

Lehkonen-Evans-Yelonen

Chiarot-Weber

Romanov-Petry

Kulak/Mete-Juulsen

Price

Allen

that lineup has a way better chance of playoff and regular season success than our current options, plus we already have a plethora of 2 way players to overcome Patches lack of defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

Rumours are swirling that Patches is back on the trade block, wonder what you would give up to get him back or if you would even consider trading for him.

I think due to the Vegas cap situation and our own cap situation you could probably offer something like Armia + Fleury + 2nd with Vegas retaining 1.5 Mil anything more from our side may not be worth it. Also we would have to move Edmundson and Byron for picks. 

Nope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Rumours are swirling that Patches is back on the trade block, wonder what you would give up to get him back or if you would even consider trading for him.

I think due to the Vegas cap situation and our own cap situation you could probably offer something like Armia + Fleury + 2nd with Vegas retaining 1.5 Mil anything more from our side may not be worth it. Also we would have to move Edmundson and Byron for picks

Nope on the first. And there's no way MB would trade Edmundson at this point. 

Easy to say trade Player A or B for picks but teams just aren't taking on salary right now. We'd have to give extra assets if we were to trade Byron, imo he'd clear waivers if sent down. If Tyler Johnson cleared with no takers why would Byron get claimed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, booboo_mtl said:

Nope on the first. And there's no way MB would trade Edmundson at this point. 

Easy to say trade Player A or B for picks but teams just aren't taking on salary right now. We'd have to give extra assets if we were to trade Byron, imo he'd clear waivers if sent down. If Tyler Johnson cleared with no takers why would Byron get claimed? 

Johnson has 4 years at 5 Mil and while he is still useful not at that cap hit and term. Byron has equal value as Johnson but at a lower cap hit and less term. There would be teams willing to give up a 4th or 5th for Byron that wouldn't for Johnson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Rumours are swirling that Patches is back on the trade block, wonder what you would give up to get him back or if you would even consider trading for him.

I think due to the Vegas cap situation and our own cap situation you could probably offer something like Armia + Fleury + 2nd with Vegas retaining 1.5 Mil anything more from our side may not be worth it. Also we would have to move Edmundson and Byron for picks. 

I honestly dont see any way Patches would consider coming back and I dont think MB would trade for him tbh. I dont get the sense he left on good terms with any of the coaches/management.   From a purely "fantasy" standpoint, I think your deal probably makes sense from both sides although I think you'd have to send a LW back - we have just too many of them now, adding another would make thinks even murkier.

 

5 hours ago, 26NCounting said:

There is no way I would include Armia in any trade. 

I like Armia a lot - and i think the coaching staff does too - although i think there's a legit chance he doesnt get re-signed (or gets traded) this summer.  Just too many bodies right now. Ideally we should trade a couple & free up space rather than losing guys for nothing but I feel like someone is walking for nothing next 'off season' (whenever that is).  

2 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Johnson has 4 years at 5 Mil and while he is still useful not at that cap hit and term. Byron has equal value as Johnson but at a lower cap hit and less term. There would be teams willing to give up a 4th or 5th for Byron that wouldn't for Johnson.

I think most GMs would disagree with your assessment.  Yes, Johnson is expensive, but so is Byron.  As you pointed out, Johnson makes $5m and Byron makes $3.4m - thats not an insignificant difference, but neither is their production.  Byron has been roughly a 30-35 point player all his career.  Yes, he's good defensively and he did score 20 goals back to back seasons but he hasnt looked great for the last couple (Not entirely his fault - so, not blaing him - but we're being objective here)  Johnson meanwhile is a consistent 45-50point scorer.   Thats a 20-ish point difference at only $1.6m difference in salary.  Yes, Johnson has 1 year longer on his contract, but Byron is also 1 year older.  

I think the value is probably pretty moot there. If we had cap space I bet you the teams would consider a 1 for 1 a fair swap.    Both are good players, both are useful but both are too expensive.  Would it be easier to fit Byron onto a roster? yes. But you'd get more value out of Johnson.   I dont think any team would give up a 4th or 5th for byron but not one for Johnson. I think they basically equal value at this stage in their careers, caps and cap hits. 

13 minutes ago, tony5775 said:

The next time Max dons a Hab sweater. It will be with the Alumni. That ship has sailed.

Agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2020 at 6:02 PM, maas_art said:

I honestly dont see any way Patches would consider coming back and I dont think MB would trade for him tbh. I dont get the sense he left on good terms with any of the coaches/management.   From a purely "fantasy" standpoint, I think your deal probably makes sense from both sides although I think you'd have to send a LW back - we have just too many of them now, adding another would make thinks even murkier.

 

I like Armia a lot - and i think the coaching staff does too - although i think there's a legit chance he doesnt get re-signed (or gets traded) this summer.  Just too many bodies right now. Ideally we should trade a couple & free up space rather than losing guys for nothing but I feel like someone is walking for nothing next 'off season' (whenever that is).  

I think most GMs would disagree with your assessment.  Yes, Johnson is expensive, but so is Byron.  As you pointed out, Johnson makes $5m and Byron makes $3.4m - thats not an insignificant difference, but neither is their production.  Byron has been roughly a 30-35 point player all his career.  Yes, he's good defensively and he did score 20 goals back to back seasons but he hasnt looked great for the last couple (Not entirely his fault - so, not blaing him - but we're being objective here)  Johnson meanwhile is a consistent 45-50point scorer.   Thats a 20-ish point difference at only $1.6m difference in salary.  Yes, Johnson has 1 year longer on his contract, but Byron is also 1 year older.  

I think the value is probably pretty moot there. If we had cap space I bet you the teams would consider a 1 for 1 a fair swap.    Both are good players, both are useful but both are too expensive.  Would it be easier to fit Byron onto a roster? yes. But you'd get more value out of Johnson.   I dont think any team would give up a 4th or 5th for byron but not one for Johnson. I think they basically equal value at this stage in their careers, caps and cap hits. 

Agree.

I see your point, what a deal involving Drouin? something like Patches + Corcoran for Drouin + 2nd? both Drouin and Patches have a bad habbit of floating sometimes but adding Patches to out lineup adds that much needed pure goal scorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, campabee82 said:

I see your point, what a deal involving Drouin? something like Patches + Corcoran for Drouin + 2nd? both Drouin and Patches have a bad habbit of floating sometimes but adding Patches to out lineup adds that much needed pure goal scorer.

Again, value-wise, probably not too far off, but not sure We give up the much younger Drouin for Patches (and I still dont think MB would consider grabbing patches again tbh). The deal would help us for sure, and it would help their cap (although we'd then have to dump some salary elsewhere)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

Again, value-wise, probably not too far off, but not sure We give up the much younger Drouin for Patches (and I still dont think MB would consider grabbing patches again tbh). The deal would help us for sure, and it would help their cap (although we'd then have to dump some salary elsewhere)

We’d absolutely have to fleece Vegas in a fire sale to even think about getting patches - he’s the type of player that gets you the 5th goal when we’re leading 4-2. I’m not even remotely interested in him in any leadership role. He had his day in our spotlight- move on 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, claremont said:

We’d absolutely have to fleece Vegas in a fire sale to even think about getting patches - he’s the type of player that gets you the 5th goal when we’re leading 4-2. I’m not even remotely interested in him in any leadership role. He had his day in our spotlight- move on 

Yeah, I wouldn't want Patches in any role except to go out and score. Like Maas said it is extremely unlikely that he would be willing to return or that MB would trade for him. I was just looking to find out what the fan interest would be lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

So with Dubois requesting a trade in Columbus, the real question is how do we get him to Montreal? B)

Any conversation probably starts with Suzuki+ or Kotkaniemi+ but I'm wondering if we could get him for like Danault+

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiLla said:

So with Dubois requesting a trade in Columbus, the real question is how do we get him to Montreal? B)

Any conversation probably starts with Suzuki+ or Kotkaniemi+ but I'm wondering if we could get him for like Danault+

Definitely they'd want to maximize return but i wouldnt be too sure they'd demand Suzuki or JK.  They have Dubois, Domi, Jenner, Koivu and Nash - with Stenlund leading their C prospect pool.     I think they could actually be more interested in a winger tbh.

Maybe you dangle Tatar + Caufield + 1st?  we'd need to shed some salary though and that still may not be enough for a talent like Dubois. Maybe Drouin replaces Tatar? 

That said, if they did insist on a young centre, Id probably consider JK but at this moment is nearly untouchable to me.  Suzuki definitely is in my books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maas_art said:

Definitely they'd want to maximize return but i wouldnt be too sure they'd demand Suzuki or JK.  They have Dubois, Domi, Jenner, Koivu and Nash - with Stenlund leading their C prospect pool.     I think they could actually be more interested in a winger tbh.

Maybe you dangle Tatar + Caufield + 1st?  we'd need to shed some salary though and that still may not be enough for a talent like Dubois. Maybe Drouin replaces Tatar? 

That said, if they did insist on a young centre, Id probably consider JK but at this moment is nearly untouchable to me.  Suzuki definitely is in my books. 

yep no touch on Suzuki!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, maas_art said:

Definitely they'd want to maximize return but i wouldnt be too sure they'd demand Suzuki or JK.  They have Dubois, Domi, Jenner, Koivu and Nash - with Stenlund leading their C prospect pool.     I think they could actually be more interested in a winger tbh.

Maybe you dangle Tatar + Caufield + 1st?  we'd need to shed some salary though and that still may not be enough for a talent like Dubois. Maybe Drouin replaces Tatar? 

That said, if they did insist on a young centre, Id probably consider JK but at this moment is nearly untouchable to me.  Suzuki definitely is in my books. 

As good as Dubois is, if Bergevin gives up another top prospect a la Sergachev for another player with experience/promise of better ability, I think it will alienate the fan base - myself included. I fully appreciate the risks of prospects not turning out, but you make that type of trade when you’re a future is now top 6 contender. We are not there yet - even on paper 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChiLla said:

So with Dubois requesting a trade in Columbus, the real question is how do we get him to Montreal? B)

Any conversation probably starts with Suzuki+ or Kotkaniemi+ but I'm wondering if we could get him for like Danault+

 

 

 

7 hours ago, maas_art said:

Definitely they'd want to maximize return but i wouldnt be too sure they'd demand Suzuki or JK.  They have Dubois, Domi, Jenner, Koivu and Nash - with Stenlund leading their C prospect pool.     I think they could actually be more interested in a winger tbh.

Maybe you dangle Tatar + Caufield + 1st?  we'd need to shed some salary though and that still may not be enough for a talent like Dubois. Maybe Drouin replaces Tatar? 

That said, if they did insist on a young centre, Id probably consider JK but at this moment is nearly untouchable to me.  Suzuki definitely is in my books. 

Going to put a few points together here:

1. Dubois has reportedly told Clb that he wants to go to a bigger market with better exposure. Guessing that means somewhere in Canada (Mtl, Tor, Van) or something like Bos, Phi, NYR, LA...

2. Some teams view Dubois as a LW rather than a C. So hard to know what that does to his value. MB saw Domi as a center. He saw Galchenyuk as a winger. So does he view Dubois as a winger to replace Drouin or Tatar or as a center? If he views him as a center, then it actually probably makes sense to trade Suzuki or Kotkaniemi in the deal or else have a 2nd trade ready to package one of them out (and I'd guess more likely to trade JK at this time given Suzuki's breakout). There's zero point to having Suzuki/JK/Dubois as three centers when you can't give them all 20 minutes a night. As much as we'd like to have that line-up, it doesn't work in a cap world and you have to balance your resources better.

3. If MB views Dubois as a winger, then you have more flexibility to make a trade as you see fit. But then another question becomes whether Dubois views himself a a winger. With his bridge contract, he controls his own destiny. Because he's already signed past next year, you can't extend him upon arrival the way we did Drouin or Anderson. So you're dealing for him with the uncertainty that he could just turn around and leave in two years. And he could very easily force you into playing him at center or force you into an 8-year deal the way Anderson did. Before signing his bridge deal, he was a better asset to acquire. Now, I find his trade value has dropped significantly, with the two-years-til-UFA status being a huge detriment to trading for him. Tack on that trades as a whole will be harder in the coming year (several GM's including MB have noted they don't expect many trades once the season starts because of quarantine rules). So at the end of the day, I almost think JK has better value than Dubois in a trade right now because he's a cost-controlled asset who can be signed to a long-term deal shortly and who will only be an RFA at contract expiration. Ditto Suzuki.

All that to say that I'm not sure what the fit is here. Yes, we'd love to have Dubois. But if we're dealing him for a young center, we're acquiring the worse contract situation. If we're dealing him for a Tatar, Drouin, or Danault, then Columbus has to be willing to make that type of deal AND Dubois has to be accepting of being a winger (and for someone wanting a trade because he reportedly wants more spotlight, not sure he wants to be anything but a 1C). And if you're thinking of making one deal and then turning around and dealing someone like JK in a 2nd trade, it makes it all the more complicated with quarantine rules to find trading partners. It's a sticky situation and despite our obvious interest in a player with Dubois' skillset, I'm not sure what type of trade makes sense for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

 

Going to put a few points together here:

1. Dubois has reportedly told Clb that he wants to go to a bigger market with better exposure. Guessing that means somewhere in Canada (Mtl, Tor, Van) or something like Bos, Phi, NYR, LA...

2. Some teams view Dubois as a LW rather than a C. So hard to know what that does to his value. MB saw Domi as a center. He saw Galchenyuk as a winger. So does he view Dubois as a winger to replace Drouin or Tatar or as a center? If he views him as a center, then it actually probably makes sense to trade Suzuki or Kotkaniemi in the deal or else have a 2nd trade ready to package one of them out (and I'd guess more likely to trade JK at this time given Suzuki's breakout). There's zero point to having Suzuki/JK/Dubois as three centers when you can't give them all 20 minutes a night. As much as we'd like to have that line-up, it doesn't work in a cap world and you have to balance your resources better.

3. If MB views Dubois as a winger, then you have more flexibility to make a trade as you see fit. But then another question becomes whether Dubois views himself a a winger. With his bridge contract, he controls his own destiny. Because he's already signed past next year, you can't extend him upon arrival the way we did Drouin or Anderson. So you're dealing for him with the uncertainty that he could just turn around and leave in two years. And he could very easily force you into playing him at center or force you into an 8-year deal the way Anderson did. Before signing his bridge deal, he was a better asset to acquire. Now, I find his trade value has dropped significantly, with the two-years-til-UFA status being a huge detriment to trading for him. Tack on that trades as a whole will be harder in the coming year (several GM's including MB have noted they don't expect many trades once the season starts because of quarantine rules). So at the end of the day, I almost think JK has better value than Dubois in a trade right now because he's a cost-controlled asset who can be signed to a long-term deal shortly and who will only be an RFA at contract expiration. Ditto Suzuki.

All that to say that I'm not sure what the fit is here. Yes, we'd love to have Dubois. But if we're dealing him for a young center, we're acquiring the worse contract situation. If we're dealing him for a Tatar, Drouin, or Danault, then Columbus has to be willing to make that type of deal AND Dubois has to be accepting of being a winger (and for someone wanting a trade because he reportedly wants more spotlight, not sure he wants to be anything but a 1C). And if you're thinking of making one deal and then turning around and dealing someone like JK in a 2nd trade, it makes it all the more complicated with quarantine rules to find trading partners. It's a sticky situation and despite our obvious interest in a player with Dubois' skillset, I'm not sure what type of trade makes sense for both sides.

I don't think trading for him makes sense for us until maybe the end of the season when we have a better idea of JK and Suzuki and if Danault is stayting. 

However, Dubois is NOT a UFA in 2 years, he'll be an arbitration-eligible RFA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, habsisme said:

I don't think trading for him makes sense for us until maybe the end of the season when we have a better idea of JK and Suzuki and if Danault is stayting. 

However, Dubois is NOT a UFA in 2 years, he'll be an arbitration-eligible RFA. 

That actually makes a huge difference. I saw several people post on twitter he was a UFA after this contract, so I ran with that. Thanks for the correction. He'll get a payday for sure but it's still preferable to be able to control your asset and where he goes and maybe salaries will be down in two years compared to now anyways after this whole pandemic thing cuts revenue and spending.

I'm not sure an extra year of evaluating our youngsters makes a huge difference. If JK and Suzuki play well again, you'll have to pay them too (i.e. no difference than PLD really). If they don't play well, suddenly you're down a trade chip and bargaining power. And if you believe the GM's, there won't be many trades come season, so we may be forced to sit on the likes of Tatar, Danault, and Armia and risk losing them for nothing. Point being that in a year, Kekalainen may be able to hold MB hostage if he sees, for example, that Danault is testing free agency and Kotkaniemi or Suzuki regressed. As much as PLD is a guy who fits what I would want as a player, I think this is much trickier to sort out in terms of an actual trade and as you said, it's a bit hard to make sense of how to fit him into our current line-up (unless of course he agrees to play wing and Kekalainen agrees his trade value is based on such).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

That actually makes a huge difference. I saw several people post on twitter he was a UFA after this contract, so I ran with that. Thanks for the correction. He'll get a payday for sure but it's still preferable to be able to control your asset and where he goes and maybe salaries will be down in two years compared to now anyways after this whole pandemic thing cuts revenue and spending.

I'm not sure an extra year of evaluating our youngsters makes a huge difference. If JK and Suzuki play well again, you'll have to pay them too (i.e. no difference than PLD really). If they don't play well, suddenly you're down a trade chip and bargaining power. And if you believe the GM's, there won't be many trades come season, so we may be forced to sit on the likes of Tatar, Danault, and Armia and risk losing them for nothing. Point being that in a year, Kekalainen may be able to hold MB hostage if he sees, for example, that Danault is testing free agency and Kotkaniemi or Suzuki regressed. As much as PLD is a guy who fits what I would want as a player, I think this is much trickier to sort out in terms of an actual trade and as you said, it's a bit hard to make sense of how to fit him into our current line-up (unless of course he agrees to play wing and Kekalainen agrees his trade value is based on such).

I personally wouldn't give up a lot for PLD, don't get me wrong he is a good player and would be our best center right now. However I also think he is extremely overrated by many fans, He put up a career high of 27 goals and 61 points with Atkinson and Panarin on his wings, his previous career highs were 20 goals and 49 points. That is only 8 points more than what Danault was able to accomplish with Tatar and Gallagher on his wings. I love Tuna and Gally as much as the next guy but Tuna is no Atkinson and Gally is no Panarin by any stretch of the imagination. So why does everyone suddenly think that PLD will be anything more than a 50-60 point center? So far PLD has never even been a PPG player in the NHL his career high is 0.74ppg that is equal to Kadri's career high. Would you pay that much to get Kadri? IMO he is a great 2nd line center and MAYBE he can be a decent 1st line center in the future but until he comes out and puts up 80+ points in a season or scores 30+ goals, he is not worth much more than Danault. all that being said the maximum I would give up for Dubois is Danault + Harris + 1st. The breakdown for me goes like this

Dubois = Danault + Harris right now 

1st = Dubois potential ceiling of 70-80 point player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

As much as PLD is a guy who fits what I would want as a player, I think this is much trickier to sort out in terms of an actual trade and as you said, it's a bit hard to make sense of how to fit him into our current line-up (unless of course he agrees to play wing and Kekalainen agrees his trade value is based on such).

Agree. And part of the problem is that we have a bunch of players who are very good - but not quite great - yet.  If all of them work out then we're laughing but you have to assume some will tap out at lower than we hope they will.   Knowing who to trade, who to keep - is risky.  If you had a crystal ball & knew that Caufield would end up as a 20 point winger, you'd have no problem trading him - but what if his potential is 50 goals? Is that worth Dubois (plus you'd have to give up real, genuine assets right now too).

Trades are always hard (couldnt resist) but when you're dealing with a team like ours, where we have a bunch of young players, its especially tricky and even impacts trading vets.  Lets say Columbus really wanted Danault & you built the deal around Danault + ___ for Dubois. You think "great, we're giving up a known commodity" but we're left with Suzuki, JK, Poehling and Evans, all of whom are not guaranteed to continue progressing.  

I suspect that Mb's interest would be luke-warm on Dubois. Not that he's not exactly the type of player the team covets (plus Quebecois) but I think MB is really pretty set with his roster. I dont think he'd want to move multiple pieces in order to acquire PD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, campabee82 said:

 So why does everyone suddenly think that PLD will be anything more than a 50-60 point center?

It aint just the points. 

Ryan O'Reilly is a career 57 point per season player.  Im not saying that they are similar players but PD brings a lot to the game aside from just points. He draws a lot of players in his direction whenever he's on the ice and opens a lot of room for his linemates.  He's also only 22 years old, so its not a big stretch to think his game will continue to improve.  He may never be more than a 70 point player, you're right, but I also wouldnt be surprised to see him score 90 points if he does continue to develop. 

Its moot because i think the chances of him ending up on our roster are very very slim. 

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...