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

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

 

I wouldn't make this deal and here's why: even if you don't plan on keeping Danault, his value as a trade deadline deal or a deal for futures would be exceedingly higher than Bennett's. Look at comparables for Danault... last year, Jean-Gabriel Pageau was a 27 year-old impending UFA center and he was dealt for a 1st rounder, a 2nd rounder, and a conditional 3rd rounder. Danault is a better player than Pageau, much higher-regarded for his defensive work and with several seasons of higher point totals than Pageau's one good year. Two years ago, Kevin Hayes was an impending UFA center with comparable point totals to Danault, with better size but again not as good defensively... traded for prospect Brendan Lemieux, a 1st rounder, and a conditional 4th rounder. In 2018, Paul Stastny as a 32 year-old impending UFA center got dealt for a 1st rounder and a prospect. In 2017, Minnesota acquired two-way center Martin Hanzal for essentially what amounted to a 1st and a 2nd.

Using those as general comparables and with the thought that Danault is probably better than all those guys I listed there, the price tag for Danault probably starts at a 1st rounder and a blue chip prospect or a 1st, a 2nd, and another asset. Ask yourself whether you would make that deal for Bennett. Would you trade a 1st rounder alone for Bennett? I wouldn't. I would consider giving up a 3rd rounder for Bennett if we were going to deal in picks. Sure, he came into the league with a strong pedigree, but he's been in the league 7 years and he's never put it all together. Look at other forwards from his draft year with similar career point totals to him and ask yourself if you'd give up a 1st rounder for any of those guys either... Jake Virtanen, Nick Ritchie, Kevin Fiala, Jakub Vrana, Robby Fabbri, Jared McCann, Adrian Kempe, Nick Schmaltz. Those were all 1st rounders in 2014 like Bennett and while many of them are decent NHLer's, there isn't a guy in there that I would deal a 1st rounder for. There isn't a guy in there that I would deal Danault for straight up.

In Bennett's case, he's an impending RFA, but he's likely going to be paid something in the range of 3-3.5M on a short-term deal that takes him to unrestricted status. Is that any better than just paying Danault 5-5.5M? If you want to look at acquiring Bennett, then make a separate deal for him and give up a late 2nd rounder or 3rd rounder to get him, then deal Danault as a deadline asset for a 1st and a 2nd, for example. The net there is a 1st rounder. If Calgary wants to include their 1st rounder with Bennett to acquire Danault, so be it. I don't see why they would do that when they're not going anywhere this year, but if they're not giving us something equivalent, I don't see why we would trade for the vastly inferior player.

I cannot argue much of what you say is true. This is more of a hunch, just like when we traded Galchenyk for Domi alot of people though we were getting a lesser player, I for one thought we were winning that deal and we did by far,  we now have Josh Anderson to show for that trade. 

Bennett has a really good skill set, is 3 years younger than Danault, still has the potential to be a top flight center. It is a risk somewhat. You are right we could probably get a 1st and 2nd, but they may not even end up being NHL players. 

I honestly don't know how Danualt will do without Gallagher and Tatar, But I honestly believe Bennett would be much better with Gallagher and Tatar 

Best case scenario, he is a late bloomer, finds his game here and becomes another steal by Bergie.  Worst case scenario, we have a young more controllable contract who has already proven he is an NHL player, who can slot in at the number 3 spot right now, and I think a line of Gallagher Bennet and Tatar would not miss a beat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Dano has a reputation around the League that would get us a much stronger asset(s) then Bennett. My point was that Poehling can probably step into the lineup as the #4 center with Evans moving into the 3rd spot and we don't see a big drop off in production except maybe in the faceoff circle. IMO Dano could be traded for picks and or prospects if it's cap room were looking for. If i'm GM i hold on to him for now and hope he rebounds to his more traditional level of play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

I still think Dano has a reputation around the League that would get us a much stronger asset(s) then Bennett. My point was that Poehling can probably step into the lineup as the #4 center with Evans moving into the 3rd spot and we don't see a big drop off in production except maybe in the faceoff circle. IMO Dano could be traded for picks and or prospects if it's cap room were looking for. If i'm GM i hold on to him for now and hope he rebounds to his more traditional level of play.

the big drop off we may see in the faceoff circle could be a game killer!

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

the big drop off we may see in the faceoff circle could be a game killer!

That would be my main reason for holding on to him. We don't really have anybody in the system to replace that area of our game. Maybe down the road our young centers take up the slack, but for now it's a luxury having the option of throwing out Dano in key draws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, H_T_L said:

That would be my main reason for holding on to him. We don't really have anybody in the system to replace that area of our game. Maybe down the road our young centers take up the slack, but for now it's a luxury having the option of throwing out Dano in key draws.

I agree, hard to say what the best deal would be? right now I feel Dano hurts us as he is pretty much dragging down the offensive outputs of two of our better forwards. The issue is who do you move and what do you get verses what we need. our lines are clicking other than Dano's

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caperns61 said:

I cannot argue much of what you say is true. This is more of a hunch, just like when we traded Galchenyk for Domi alot of people though we were getting a lesser player, I for one thought we were winning that deal and we did by far,  we now have Josh Anderson to show for that trade. 

Bennett has a really good skill set, is 3 years younger than Danault, still has the potential to be a top flight center. It is a risk somewhat. You are right we could probably get a 1st and 2nd, but they may not even end up being NHL players. 

I honestly don't know how Danualt will do without Gallagher and Tatar, But I honestly believe Bennett would be much better with Gallagher and Tatar 

Best case scenario, he is a late bloomer, finds his game here and becomes another steal by Bergie.  Worst case scenario, we have a young more controllable contract who has already proven he is an NHL player, who can slot in at the number 3 spot right now, and I think a line of Gallagher Bennet and Tatar would not miss a beat. 

I'm not saying Bennett won't be better than Danault or vice versa. All I'm really trying to hit on is trade value. It's the same reason I didn't love the Galchenyuk-Domi or Domi-Anderson trades on the days they were made if we look strictly at what compensation was. In Galchenyuk's case, he was a guy who was not that far removed from being played as a 1C on the EGG line and having reasonable success there. If the Habs had dealt him as a 30-goal scorer #1 center, the trade return would have been much higher. Instead, they deflated his value, played him sparingly as a 4th line winger and didn't get as good a return as they could have. Domi was being played as a winger in Arizona when he was dealt, so similar deal maybe, but Galchenyuk had more to his resume than Domi, so while it might have been debatable who would go on to be better, I think we gave up the better player on paper at the time of the trade.

In the Domi-Anderson deal, I loved the trade in terms of player for player. Anderson was a much better fit for what we needed, and as I said at the time, I thought the contract we gave Anderson wasn't bad considering it was clear the Habs were going to use him as a top-6 winger and that it was reasonable to assume he could get to 25-30 goals if healthy. I have also never been a Domi fan in terms of his selfishness and bad penalties and attitude, so I loved the trade of assets. But that said, Domi was the guy with the better peak results at the time of the trade. He was a center and guy who had reasonably been our 1C, and we have always heard throughout the league that centers have more trade value than wingers. When we were trading Pacioretty and discussed whether we could get this guy or that guy for him as we searched for a top 6 center, how many pundits and former NHL execs and so on said we could never get a top 6 center for Pacioretty because despite the fact he was one of the 5 most prolific scorers over the past few seasons, he was a winger and you can't get the same value at center back for a winger. People said that even though Pacioretty had better numbers than Duchene and was largely considered to be a good defensive player too, that Pacioretty's trade value was well below Duchene's because Duchene was a center and we couldn't ask for a similar package. So I heard all these guys who are hockey insiders talk about that to death, yet when it came time to talk about Domi for Anderson, all we heard these Habs-haters talk about was Anderson's size and no one really made any stink about the fact that Domi was a top 6 center while Anderson was a winger.

So yes, I loved acquiring Anderson. If I were drafting Anderson or Domi or signing one of them as a free agent, I 100% would have chosen Anderson first. But I also would have chosen Pacioretty over Duchene and I really didn't get why the whole talk of center vs winger went out the window and didn't apply any more when the Habs were the ones holding the top 6 center as a trade chip.

So getting back to Danault and Bennett, I'm not trying to infer who will fit in better or who will have more success going forward. I'm simply saying that if you look at comparables to Danault, meaning middle-6 two-way centers with some amount of offensive output, those players have for the past 5 years been going for a 1st rounder AND additional assets. Meanwhile, guys like Bennett, even if they were top 5 picks, are not. The Oilers couldn't find anyone to give them a 2nd rounder for Puljujarvi. Benoit Pouliot got tossed around without much value. Jonathan Drouin has been way better than Bennett in his career, and many here question what his value is as a trade asset because he hasn't lived up to his pre-draft hype. Dylan Strome, former #3 overall, was traded with another asset for Nick Schmaltz. Lias Andersson, a recent #7 overall was just traded for a 2nd rounder this past year and he's 3 years younger than Bennett. Bottom line is that people in the NHL can see Bennett has been in the big leagues for 7 years and hasn't done anything. He's not a prospect and while there is still some potential there, he's largely viewed more as being a flop, insofar as becoming a top 6 player. So as I said, it's one thing if you want to give up a mid-level asset like a 3rd round pick to get him, but he's not someone I would be trading an asset like Danault to get when on paper and based on comparables, Danault should have a lot more value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I'm not saying Bennett won't be better than Danault or vice versa. All I'm really trying to hit on is trade value. It's the same reason I didn't love the Galchenyuk-Domi or Domi-Anderson trades on the days they were made if we look strictly at what compensation was. In Galchenyuk's case, he was a guy who was not that far removed from being played as a 1C on the EGG line and having reasonable success there. If the Habs had dealt him as a 30-goal scorer #1 center, the trade return would have been much higher. Instead, they deflated his value, played him sparingly as a 4th line winger and didn't get as good a return as they could have. Domi was being played as a winger in Arizona when he was dealt, so similar deal maybe, but Galchenyuk had more to his resume than Domi, so while it might have been debatable who would go on to be better, I think we gave up the better player on paper at the time of the trade.

In the Domi-Anderson deal, I loved the trade in terms of player for player. Anderson was a much better fit for what we needed, and as I said at the time, I thought the contract we gave Anderson wasn't bad considering it was clear the Habs were going to use him as a top-6 winger and that it was reasonable to assume he could get to 25-30 goals if healthy. I have also never been a Domi fan in terms of his selfishness and bad penalties and attitude, so I loved the trade of assets. But that said, Domi was the guy with the better peak results at the time of the trade. He was a center and guy who had reasonably been our 1C, and we have always heard throughout the league that centers have more trade value than wingers. When we were trading Pacioretty and discussed whether we could get this guy or that guy for him as we searched for a top 6 center, how many pundits and former NHL execs and so on said we could never get a top 6 center for Pacioretty because despite the fact he was one of the 5 most prolific scorers over the past few seasons, he was a winger and you can't get the same value at center back for a winger. People said that even though Pacioretty had better numbers than Duchene and was largely considered to be a good defensive player too, that Pacioretty's trade value was well below Duchene's because Duchene was a center and we couldn't ask for a similar package. So I heard all these guys who are hockey insiders talk about that to death, yet when it came time to talk about Domi for Anderson, all we heard these Habs-haters talk about was Anderson's size and no one really made any stink about the fact that Domi was a top 6 center while Anderson was a winger.

So yes, I loved acquiring Anderson. If I were drafting Anderson or Domi or signing one of them as a free agent, I 100% would have chosen Anderson first. But I also would have chosen Pacioretty over Duchene and I really didn't get why the whole talk of center vs winger went out the window and didn't apply any more when the Habs were the ones holding the top 6 center as a trade chip.

So getting back to Danault and Bennett, I'm not trying to infer who will fit in better or who will have more success going forward. I'm simply saying that if you look at comparables to Danault, meaning middle-6 two-way centers with some amount of offensive output, those players have for the past 5 years been going for a 1st rounder AND additional assets. Meanwhile, guys like Bennett, even if they were top 5 picks, are not. The Oilers couldn't find anyone to give them a 2nd rounder for Puljujarvi. Benoit Pouliot got tossed around without much value. Jonathan Drouin has been way better than Bennett in his career, and many here question what his value is as a trade asset because he hasn't lived up to his pre-draft hype. Dylan Strome, former #3 overall, was traded with another asset for Nick Schmaltz. Lias Andersson, a recent #7 overall was just traded for a 2nd rounder this past year and he's 3 years younger than Bennett. Bottom line is that people in the NHL can see Bennett has been in the big leagues for 7 years and hasn't done anything. He's not a prospect and while there is still some potential there, he's largely viewed more as being a flop, insofar as becoming a top 6 player. So as I said, it's one thing if you want to give up a mid-level asset like a 3rd round pick to get him, but he's not someone I would be trading an asset like Danault to get when on paper and based on comparables, Danault should have a lot more value.

Big breath...........Well said, with good analogies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2021 at 2:50 PM, BigTed3 said:

I'm not saying Bennett won't be better than Danault or vice versa. All I'm really trying to hit on is trade value. It's the same reason I didn't love the Galchenyuk-Domi or Domi-Anderson trades on the days they were made if we look strictly at what compensation was. In Galchenyuk's case, he was a guy who was not that far removed from being played as a 1C on the EGG line and having reasonable success there. If the Habs had dealt him as a 30-goal scorer #1 center, the trade return would have been much higher. Instead, they deflated his value, played him sparingly as a 4th line winger and didn't get as good a return as they could have. Domi was being played as a winger in Arizona when he was dealt, so similar deal maybe, but Galchenyuk had more to his resume than Domi, so while it might have been debatable who would go on to be better, I think we gave up the better player on paper at the time of the trade.

In the Domi-Anderson deal, I loved the trade in terms of player for player. Anderson was a much better fit for what we needed, and as I said at the time, I thought the contract we gave Anderson wasn't bad considering it was clear the Habs were going to use him as a top-6 winger and that it was reasonable to assume he could get to 25-30 goals if healthy. I have also never been a Domi fan in terms of his selfishness and bad penalties and attitude, so I loved the trade of assets. But that said, Domi was the guy with the better peak results at the time of the trade. He was a center and guy who had reasonably been our 1C, and we have always heard throughout the league that centers have more trade value than wingers. When we were trading Pacioretty and discussed whether we could get this guy or that guy for him as we searched for a top 6 center, how many pundits and former NHL execs and so on said we could never get a top 6 center for Pacioretty because despite the fact he was one of the 5 most prolific scorers over the past few seasons, he was a winger and you can't get the same value at center back for a winger. People said that even though Pacioretty had better numbers than Duchene and was largely considered to be a good defensive player too, that Pacioretty's trade value was well below Duchene's because Duchene was a center and we couldn't ask for a similar package. So I heard all these guys who are hockey insiders talk about that to death, yet when it came time to talk about Domi for Anderson, all we heard these Habs-haters talk about was Anderson's size and no one really made any stink about the fact that Domi was a top 6 center while Anderson was a winger.

So yes, I loved acquiring Anderson. If I were drafting Anderson or Domi or signing one of them as a free agent, I 100% would have chosen Anderson first. But I also would have chosen Pacioretty over Duchene and I really didn't get why the whole talk of center vs winger went out the window and didn't apply any more when the Habs were the ones holding the top 6 center as a trade chip.

So getting back to Danault and Bennett, I'm not trying to infer who will fit in better or who will have more success going forward. I'm simply saying that if you look at comparables to Danault, meaning middle-6 two-way centers with some amount of offensive output, those players have for the past 5 years been going for a 1st rounder AND additional assets. Meanwhile, guys like Bennett, even if they were top 5 picks, are not. The Oilers couldn't find anyone to give them a 2nd rounder for Puljujarvi. Benoit Pouliot got tossed around without much value. Jonathan Drouin has been way better than Bennett in his career, and many here question what his value is as a trade asset because he hasn't lived up to his pre-draft hype. Dylan Strome, former #3 overall, was traded with another asset for Nick Schmaltz. Lias Andersson, a recent #7 overall was just traded for a 2nd rounder this past year and he's 3 years younger than Bennett. Bottom line is that people in the NHL can see Bennett has been in the big leagues for 7 years and hasn't done anything. He's not a prospect and while there is still some potential there, he's largely viewed more as being a flop, insofar as becoming a top 6 player. So as I said, it's one thing if you want to give up a mid-level asset like a 3rd round pick to get him, but he's not someone I would be trading an asset like Danault to get when on paper and based on comparables, Danault should have a lot more value.

Some of the players you are mentioning go against what your are trying to sell me.

1. Nick Schmaltz .62 points per game player, was traded just after a 52 point season, with 21 goals at the age of 22 years old.  Dylan Strome had 51 points in 58 games his first season with Chicago , followed by 38 points in 58 games his second season and still only 23, averaging .63 points per game, i would take either of these players for Danalt in a heart beat. Both young who can bring offence. 

2. Pouliot was swapped for Latrendesse to see if a lateral move could rejuvenate their carreers. It didnt. It was a wash and both there carreers failed.

3. Please Lias Anderson has not scored more then 2 goals in a season, I am surprised they even got a second round pick. He is on his 4th season. 

4. Danualt is 27 years old, looking for 5.5 to 6 million dollars .51 points per game - You would not get Bennet if he was putting up 25 goals a year and 60 plus points. Thats part of the risk. Much like we would not have got Domi from Arizona if he was putting up 25 goals and 60plus points in a year. and recently getting Anderson....

5. Trading is a risk. Trade for Bennet . Bennet comes in has a great season, his value goes up, you may have the same option you had with DOMI.  If he doesn't, comes in and gets his 14 goal average as a 3 line center for a year or two at a reasonable cap. That is fine also.  Even if we just get the player who brings all his talent in the playoffs when its most needed. 11 goals in 30 games, Danualt has 1 goal in 16 playoff games. I also feel Danualt is over hyped being in a big Market like Montreal. Plus he has been playing with the best wingers we have on our team, since his first full season and he still only averages 11 goals a season. 

Anyway full value to your selling points. I however, would make this move because he would fill a need if we move of lose Danualt. I think Bennett still has more value then you give him credit for. He has come up big at the most important times of the year Playoffs, That adds value, he is still young and still a RFA at year end that adds value. he was a top  4 pick and still young enough to find his game that adds value and I don't thing Calgary is just ready to throw him away nor should they be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, caperns61 said:

Some of the players you are mentioning go against what your are trying to sell me.

1. Nick Schmaltz .62 points per game player, was traded just after a 52 point season, with 21 goals at the age of 22 years old.  Dylan Strome had 51 points in 58 games his first season with Chicago , followed by 38 points in 58 games his second season and still only 23, averaging .63 points per game, i would take either of these players for Danalt in a heart beat. Both young who can bring offence. 

2. Pouliot was swapped for Latrendesse to see if a lateral move could rejuvenate their carreers. It didnt. It was a wash and both there carreers failed.

3. Please Lias Anderson has not scored more then 2 goals in a season, I am surprised they even got a second round pick. He is on his 4th season. 

4. Danualt is 27 years old, looking for 5.5 to 6 million dollars .51 points per game - You would not get Bennet if he was putting up 25 goals a year and 60 plus points. Thats part of the risk. Much like we would not have got Domi from Arizona if he was putting up 25 goals and 60plus points in a year. and recently getting Anderson....

5. Trading is a risk. Trade for Bennet . Bennet comes in has a great season, his value goes up, you may have the same option you had with DOMI.  If he doesn't, comes in and gets his 14 goal average as a 3 line center for a year or two at a reasonable cap. That is fine also.  Even if we just get the player who brings all his talent in the playoffs when its most needed. 11 goals in 30 games, Danualt has 1 goal in 16 playoff games. I also feel Danualt is over hyped being in a big Market like Montreal. Plus he has been playing with the best wingers we have on our team, since his first full season and he still only averages 11 goals a season. 

Anyway full value to your selling points. I however, would make this move because he would fill a need if we move of lose Danualt. I think Bennett still has more value then you give him credit for. He has come up big at the most important times of the year Playoffs, That adds value, he is still young and still a RFA at year end that adds value. he was a top  4 pick and still young enough to find his game that adds value and I don't thing Calgary is just ready to throw him away nor should they be. 

I certainly would make that trade.     6'1" 200 lbs. Potential still there. Throw him between Gally & Tater and watch what happens.  Don't know if Calgary would want more, but throw in a pick if necessary. Something needs to happen,  cause  PD certainly isn't bringing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a few names rumoured to be available right now - Ryan Nuggent Hopkins (Talks have broken down witht he oilers but RNH does say he wants to remain an Oiler), Forsberg, Ekholm (Preds talking "blow up"),  Getzlaf (Ana looking to get some value out of him at TD) and some others of course (Crosby - i dont believe it - Bennett etc)

 

Obviously huge swing on what we'd offer for some of those guys and what they'd bring but imagine adding Ekholm and Getzlaf.  Your top 4 is now Ekholm-Weber,  Edmundson-Petry  with Chairot/Mete/Kulak/Romanov making up your 3rd pair.   Getzlaf for the post season? yes please. 

Im not sure what sort of return Nashville would want though.  Would they accept Danault +  as the basis for an Ekholm deal?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maas_art said:

a few names rumoured to be available right now - Ryan Nuggent Hopkins (Talks have broken down witht he oilers but RNH does say he wants to remain an Oiler), Forsberg, Ekholm (Preds talking "blow up"),  Getzlaf (Ana looking to get some value out of him at TD) and some others of course (Crosby - i dont believe it - Bennett etc)

 

Obviously huge swing on what we'd offer for some of those guys and what they'd bring but imagine adding Ekholm and Getzlaf.  Your top 4 is now Ekholm-Weber,  Edmundson-Petry  with Chairot/Mete/Kulak/Romanov making up your 3rd pair.   Getzlaf for the post season? yes please. 

Im not sure what sort of return Nashville would want though.  Would they accept Danault +  as the basis for an Ekholm deal?  

Ekholm is a red flag to me. He's a defensive defenceman who doesn't carry the puck very much, so I'm not sure he's a good partner for Weber and while he's an upgrade on what we have with Edmundson or Chiarot, he largely fills the same role as them and doesn't fill the need we have for a puck-moving defenceman. Ekholm's advanced stats really plummeted last year after he lost Subban as a partner, and in general, 3 of his 4 best years in terms of possession and 3 of his top 5 in terms of production were 2016-17, 17-18, and 18-19 (the 3 years he had Subban as a partner for most of the time). So the question is whether he's just hit 30 and is hitting the "past his prime" drop-off or whether he was being made to look better than he actually was by playing with a possession monster like Subban (akin to Komisarek being propped up by Markov here or Methot being propped up by Karlsson in Ottawa). Ekholm's still a useful piece but he's not what we need and he's likely going to require an overpayment for what he's worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2021 at 11:35 AM, ramcharger440 said:

the big drop off we may see in the faceoff circle could be a game killer!

Sam Bennet FO% 15/16 46.11; 16/17 46.12; 17/18 54.34; 18/19 55.56; 19/20 51.74                                                                                                                                                        Phil Danault FO% 15/16 47.06; 16/17 51.07; 17/18 52.80; 18/19 55.50; 19/20 54.50

Maybe not that big a drop off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, maas_art said:

a few names rumoured to be available right now - Ryan Nuggent Hopkins (Talks have broken down witht he oilers but RNH does say he wants to remain an Oiler), Forsberg, Ekholm (Preds talking "blow up"),  Getzlaf (Ana looking to get some value out of him at TD) and some others of course (Crosby - i dont believe it - Bennett etc)

 

Obviously huge swing on what we'd offer for some of those guys and what they'd bring but imagine adding Ekholm and Getzlaf.  Your top 4 is now Ekholm-Weber,  Edmundson-Petry  with Chairot/Mete/Kulak/Romanov making up your 3rd pair.   Getzlaf for the post season? yes please. 

Im not sure what sort of return Nashville would want though.  Would they accept Danault +  as the basis for an Ekholm deal?  

 

 

 

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Ekholm is a red flag to me. He's a defensive defenceman who doesn't carry the puck very much, so I'm not sure he's a good partner for Weber and while he's an upgrade on what we have with Edmundson or Chiarot, he largely fills the same role as them and doesn't fill the need we have for a puck-moving defenceman. Ekholm's advanced stats really plummeted last year after he lost Subban as a partner, and in general, 3 of his 4 best years in terms of possession and 3 of his top 5 in terms of production were 2016-17, 17-18, and 18-19 (the 3 years he had Subban as a partner for most of the time). So the question is whether he's just hit 30 and is hitting the "past his prime" drop-off or whether he was being made to look better than he actually was by playing with a possession monster like Subban (akin to Komisarek being propped up by Markov here or Methot being propped up by Karlsson in Ottawa). Ekholm's still a useful piece but he's not what we need and he's likely going to require an overpayment for what he's worth.

Yeah, I'm not seeing any benefit to getting Ekholm. As BigTed3 stated, Ekholm is in the same mold as JE & BC & even BK for that matter. We need a puck mover or a better D. Bergevin's mantra of not having enough D, doesn't really apply here. If we do go for a D, he needs to be a good skater, preferably, a left hand shot, 6' plus and a good puck mover. It may cost, but if you can keep it out of your end, logic dictates, that it will be in the other end. So, go big or go home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

How about the Habs send Byron , Danault and Tatar  ( To make the Cap work )  and Caufield, Guhle and a First to Buffalo for Eichel,  Habs new first line would be Toffoli, Eichel, Gallagher.  Burffalo gets some nice pieces to begin rebuild. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Paul Martin said:

How about the Habs send Byron , Danault and Tatar  ( To make the Cap work )  and Caufield, Guhle and a First to Buffalo for Eichel,  Habs new first line would be Toffoli, Eichel, Gallagher.  Burffalo gets some nice pieces to begin rebuild. 

I'd do it but everyone here is convinced caufield is 50 goal scorer 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I'd do it but everyone here is convinced caufield is 50 goal scorer 

Well maybe but 50 goal scorers are rare and given his small stature he may end up being more of a situational type guy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul Martin said:

Well maybe but 50 goal scorers are rare and given his small stature he may end up being more of a situational type guy.  

he could EASILY be a middle 6 power play specialist but don't tell people here that

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, habsisme said:

he could EASILY be a middle 6 power play specialist but don't tell people here that

He could be like other 1st round draft picks by the Habs:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Martin said:

How about the Habs send Byron , Danault and Tatar  ( To make the Cap work )  and Caufield, Guhle and a First to Buffalo for Eichel,  Habs new first line would be Toffoli, Eichel, Gallagher.  Burffalo gets some nice pieces to begin rebuild. 

Who do you think we are trading for? That package would be worth Crosby  but I wouldn't do it for Eichel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crosby is too old. Eichel is a 24 year old franchise type center.  Only a few in the whole league.  Habs haven't  had a center as good in forever. Tatar and Danault will be UFA's and Byron is overpaid by aboout 2 Million per year.  Prospects and Draft Picks are always a gamble. Forget Eichel performance this year. Burffalo is a mess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul Martin said:

How about the Habs send Byron , Danault and Tatar  ( To make the Cap work )  and Caufield, Guhle and a First to Buffalo for Eichel,  Habs new first line would be Toffoli, Eichel, Gallagher.  Burffalo gets some nice pieces to begin rebuild. 

Not giving up Caufield. No way. No how. I 'll gamble on his potential to be an NHL sniper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, electron58 said:

Not giving up Caufield. No way. No how. I 'll gamble on his potential to be an NHL sniper.

Well he certainly has a big time release and shot.  Really small though and when he stepped up in competition ( twice at World Juniors ) he looked kinda ordinary. The question  is whether or not in the Pro Ranks if he will go to the net .  Tough to score conistently at the highest levels if you are going to hang on the perimeter.   Honestly I haven't seen him play enough to know if has any of Brengan Gallaghers kind of toughness. He will need at least some of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Martin said:

Well he certainly has a big time release and shot.  Really small though and when he stepped up in competition ( twice at World Juniors ) he looked kinda ordinary. The question  is whether or not in the Pro Ranks if he will go to the net .  Tough to score conistently at the highest levels if you are going to hang on the perimeter.   Honestly I haven't seen him play enough to know if has any of Brengan Gallaghers kind of toughness. He will need at least some of it. 

Well, there have been a few soft, sniper type players in the NHL over the years. Michel Bossy, Pierre Larouche, maybe Patrick Kane, Jouny Gaudrea, even Guy Lafleur, Alex Debrincat and others. I'm not saying CC will be like these players, but in the right environement, CC can be a success. I don't think we have anyone as good a shooter as CC. Put CC on the PP or 3 on 3..........

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, electron58 said:

Well, there have been a few soft, sniper type players in the NHL over the years. Michel Bossy, Pierre Larouche, maybe Patrick Kane, Jouny Gaudrea, even Guy Lafleur, Alex Debrincat and others. I'm not saying CC will be like these players, but in the right environement, CC can be a success. I don't think we have anyone as good a shooter as CC. Put CC on the PP or 3 on 3..........

Ok Fair Enough.  No question the Kid is a great Prospect but he is a Prospect and it could be years before he develops into a good Pro.   If you have to include him as a corner piece in a deal to get Eichel I think they should do it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...