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

Recommended Posts

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maas_art said:

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. 

Danault also brings many of the same aspects Dubois does and he draws players to him to open space on the ice for his linemates. I get that Dubois is 5 years younger and has potential to be a 70+ point player but on the flip side if he couldn't do it with Panarin and Atkinson just who exactly does he need on his wings to put up those kinds of numbers, Liane and Conner? 

 

I also agree with you that it is a moot point cause PLD isn't going to be traded. I think most likely the Jackets sign him to another 2 year deal then he walks in FA or is traded at the deadline before he hits FA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

Danault also brings many of the same aspects Dubois does and he draws players to him to open space on the ice for his linemates. I get that Dubois is 5 years younger and has potential to be a 70+ point player but on the flip side if he couldn't do it with Panarin and Atkinson just who exactly does he need on his wings to put up those kinds of numbers, Liane and Conner? 

 

I also agree with you that it is a moot point cause PLD isn't going to be traded. I think most likely the Jackets sign him to another 2 year deal then he walks in FA or is traded at the deadline before he hits FA.

How old was PLD when he played with Panarin? 20? I like Danault, but PLD is on a totally different level. Personally, if I were MB I would float Danault and KK out there as trade bait. I’m happy with our roster as is, but the idea of adding PLD is intriguing.

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

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'm not sure I understand this risk? You don't get nothing - you get collectively about $10.5M of cap room for replacement free agent players in the worst case scenario.  Are you thinking with your non-playoff bound thinking cap where we carry a player on an expiring contract and fail to trade them for at least draft choices/prospects - where's the fan positivity in that? If it's the latter, then they didn't do their jobs and deserve to go to free agency.  IMO Armia's days are numbered regardless as I would expect Caufield to turn pro, and at least be given a trial on the RW 3rd line spot that Armia takes up. It would be a waste for Caufield on the 4th line. Armia has to have a banner season or he's getting a one year deal while Caufield tunes up in Laval or another year in NCAA, or Ylonen / Evans take the spot. I'd suggest that if Tatar or Danualt don't earn a renewal, then there should be an F/A that we can take a run at - Landeskog, Laine, or even some RFA's as the pick cupboard is stocked.

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

How old was PLD when he played with Panarin? 20? I like Danault, but PLD is on a totally different level. Personally, if I were MB I would float Danault and KK out there as trade bait. I’m happy with our roster as is, but the idea of adding PLD is intriguing.

Yes, he was 20 but Aho was 21 when he put up 83 points in his 3rd year in the league. The idea of losing 2 of our Centers for 1 is not appealing enough to me. Essentially we get PLD but weaken the lineup down the middle as we now have to run Poehling at 3C (even though he is not ready) and Evans at 4C 

Edited by campabee82
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Yes, he was 20 but Aho was 21 when he put up 83 points in his 3rd year in the league. The idea of losing 2 of our Centers for 1 is not appealing enough to me. Essentially we get PLD but weaken the lineup down the middle as we now have to run Poehling at 3C (even though he is not ready) and Evans at 4C 

Yes, the question of who to play at 3rd C concerns me too. I’m not sure what’s left in FA, but we did just sign Perry for under $1 mil. Perhaps there’s a decent C that could be picked up at a similar price. Or perhaps, since we already have to make a trade in order to shed some salary, we could, for example, flip Byron for a cheaper 3rd line C. I don’t know, but I do agree that it would weaken our depth down the middle. That said, it would without a doubt strengthen our C in the top 6.

And yes, Aho might have done it at 20, but for every example of someone who’s broke 70 points by the age of 20 there’s plenty more (that eventually do) that peak a little later than that. For example, KK is 20 right now. I would bet my house that he doesn’t break 70 this year, but that doesn’t mean he won’t develop into that with time. And I don’t think most of us on here would write him off if he doesn’t. 
Trading Danault and KK for PLD would essentially be like melting the best qualities of both Danault and KK into one. A 1-2 punch of Suzuki and PLD would be really good.

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

Trading Danault and KK for PLD would essentially be like melting the best qualities of both Danault and KK into one. A 1-2 punch of Suzuki and PLD would be really good.

If thats all it cost i could probably get on board for it - although honestly i think they'd be more interested in our wingers than our centres.

I suppose some of this would be based on whether the team thinks a combination of Evans/Poehling is enough for the 3rd and 4th line.  If you could get PD for Danault + Winger(s) then you have Suzuki/Dubois/JK/Evans/Poehling which is incredible. 

Maybe the other option is to flip it around & offer two young centres in JK and Poehling.  That gives you Suzuki-Dubois-Danault_Evans which honestly should be pretty special for the foresable future.


That said, Im still pretty ok with Suzuki - JK - Danault - Evans/Poehling too. I think Dubois has a higher likelihood of reaching his ceiling than JK although im not convinced his ceiling itself is actually higher.  Definitely different but not necessarily higher. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, campabee82 said:

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

 

Dubois is young. So I don't know why his having a max of 61 points by age 22 suggests that's likely to be his ceiling. Most people here have balked at the idea of trading Suzuki or Kotkaniemi for Dubois, but if we're going to talk about past point highs as being the reason for being overrated, then we can look at Nick Suzuki as Exhibit A. He's only a year younger than Dubois and he's played one year in the NHL, putting up 13 goals and 41 points. Nowhere close to Dubois' totals and yet most fans here have anointed him the future 1C and won't trade him for Dubois. People tend to overvalue their own players and so while it's perfectly fine for you to think PLD won't be more than a 50-60 point player, there's even less evidence to believe Suzuki or Kotkaniemi will be more than a 60-point player either. You talk about wanting him to be an 80-point guy to be a decent 1C, but if we look at last year's stats, there were exactly 4 centers who hit 80 points or more: Draisaitl, McDavid, Mackinnon, and Matthews. You're not getting one of those guys via trade and if you were you'd be paying way more than you'd pay for PLD. At the end of the day, PLD would walk in the door and be our top forward the day he showed up here. The problem I have is not his skillset or even projected stats, it's how he fits in the line-up. Right now, you have two strong center assets who are high-potential and cost-controlled. So do you want to take on a guy who's making 5M and put him in for a Suzuki or Kotkaniemi, who are making a fraction of that? I'd personally rather stick it out with the cheaper players and focus on improving other areas. If PLD wants to be a LW, that fits better for us, but our primary needs right now are wing and above all else, LHD.

 

10 hours ago, maas_art said:

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. 

You're spot on about trades. It's all projection, and the best GM's are able to accurately hit on how players will do in the future and how they fit into the team's system and with other members of the team. Anyone can look and see how many goals Player X scored last year. The question is how many goals Player X is likely to score next year and the one after that. Did he score a bunch because he was given tons of ice time and the best linemates and PP opportunity? Or was he actually the factor driving play? Does he have a skillset that seems like it fits a need here, the way Anderson fits what we needed more than Domi? Does the player fill a position need we don't have or does he fit a Cup window time period that the guy you're getting rid of doesn't? These are the questions a GM needs to be asking.

The one thing I will say about MB is that he was rumored to be very interested in trading up for PLD at the draft, and if you believe the rumors, he supposedly had a deal in place with Edmonton to move up to 4 to take him if Clb had taken Puljujarvi instead. As you alluded to, he's big, he's a French-Quebecer, he's skilled, he's young, and he's a center, so he fits a lot of the profile for a player a Habs GM would love to build his team around. Kind of like trading for Drouin, you wonder if MB would overpay or take a bit of a risk to be able to add that profile of player to his roster. As I said, I think the drawbacks to trading for Dubois are the fit into the line-up with Suzuki and JK already being there, along with the potential cost of having to re-up him in two years and having to already pay him more than you do your two younger guys. The Habs are already tight against the cap, so they can't just swap out JK for Dubois, they'd have to move out a Tatar or Drouin or so on to make this work. Even moving Danault doesn't help a ton right now because you'd still need to find a bit more free money and you then have 3 offensive centers to find ice time for.

There are only two ways a trade makes sense... one is dealing Suzuki or JK along with a bigger salary (like a Tatar) to Clb to make the money work, assuming PLD wants to be a center. The other is verifying that PLD would be okay being a LW and then including one of Drouin or Tatar in the deal to make the money and position needs fit.

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

I'm not sure I understand this risk? You don't get nothing - you get collectively about $10.5M of cap room for replacement free agent players in the worst case scenario.  Are you thinking with your non-playoff bound thinking cap where we carry a player on an expiring contract and fail to trade them for at least draft choices/prospects - where's the fan positivity in that? If it's the latter, then they didn't do their jobs and deserve to go to free agency.  IMO Armia's days are numbered regardless as I would expect Caufield to turn pro, and at least be given a trial on the RW 3rd line spot that Armia takes up. It would be a waste for Caufield on the 4th line. Armia has to have a banner season or he's getting a one year deal while Caufield tunes up in Laval or another year in NCAA, or Ylonen / Evans take the spot. I'd suggest that if Tatar or Danualt don't earn a renewal, then there should be an F/A that we can take a run at - Landeskog, Laine, or even some RFA's as the pick cupboard is stocked.

If you keep all 3 guys and don't re-sign any of them, then yes, you've lost 3 guys for nothing. I don't think cap space is really adequate to explain losing them for no return because I think all 3 of those guys have some trade value, especially Danault. I think a lot of GM's would drool over getting Danault, especially for a playoff run this year on a cost-controlled contract. I think you'd easily get a 1st plus a blue chip prospect. If you made a hockey deal, I think you could fill another hole pretty handily. It's one thing to say you're okay with losing only Tatar or only Armia as a UFA and essentially deciding they're your own "rental" player for a playoff run this season. But it would be bad management to lose all three guys for nothing and especially a player like Danault who would be in high demand and has great market value right now.

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

 

Dubois is young. So I don't know why his having a max of 61 points by age 22 suggests that's likely to be his ceiling. Most people here have balked at the idea of trading Suzuki or Kotkaniemi for Dubois, but if we're going to talk about past point highs as being the reason for being overrated, then we can look at Nick Suzuki as Exhibit A. He's only a year younger than Dubois and he's played one year in the NHL, putting up 13 goals and 41 points. Nowhere close to Dubois' totals and yet most fans here have anointed him the future 1C and won't trade him for Dubois. People tend to overvalue their own players and so while it's perfectly fine for you to think PLD won't be more than a 50-60 point player, there's even less evidence to believe Suzuki or Kotkaniemi will be more than a 60-point player either. You talk about wanting him to be an 80-point guy to be a decent 1C, but if we look at last year's stats, there were exactly 4 centers who hit 80 points or more: Draisaitl, McDavid, Mackinnon, and Matthews. You're not getting one of those guys via trade and if you were you'd be paying way more than you'd pay for PLD. At the end of the day, PLD would walk in the door and be our top forward the day he showed up here. The problem I have is not his skillset or even projected stats, it's how he fits in the line-up. Right now, you have two strong center assets who are high-potential and cost-controlled. So do you want to take on a guy who's making 5M and put him in for a Suzuki or Kotkaniemi, who are making a fraction of that? I'd personally rather stick it out with the cheaper players and focus on improving other areas. If PLD wants to be a LW, that fits better for us, but our primary needs right now are wing and above all else, LHD.

 

You're spot on about trades. It's all projection, and the best GM's are able to accurately hit on how players will do in the future and how they fit into the team's system and with other members of the team. Anyone can look and see how many goals Player X scored last year. The question is how many goals Player X is likely to score next year and the one after that. Did he score a bunch because he was given tons of ice time and the best linemates and PP opportunity? Or was he actually the factor driving play? Does he have a skillset that seems like it fits a need here, the way Anderson fits what we needed more than Domi? Does the player fill a position need we don't have or does he fit a Cup window time period that the guy you're getting rid of doesn't? These are the questions a GM needs to be asking.

The one thing I will say about MB is that he was rumored to be very interested in trading up for PLD at the draft, and if you believe the rumors, he supposedly had a deal in place with Edmonton to move up to 4 to take him if Clb had taken Puljujarvi instead. As you alluded to, he's big, he's a French-Quebecer, he's skilled, he's young, and he's a center, so he fits a lot of the profile for a player a Habs GM would love to build his team around. Kind of like trading for Drouin, you wonder if MB would overpay or take a bit of a risk to be able to add that profile of player to his roster. As I said, I think the drawbacks to trading for Dubois are the fit into the line-up with Suzuki and JK already being there, along with the potential cost of having to re-up him in two years and having to already pay him more than you do your two younger guys. The Habs are already tight against the cap, so they can't just swap out JK for Dubois, they'd have to move out a Tatar or Drouin or so on to make this work. Even moving Danault doesn't help a ton right now because you'd still need to find a bit more free money and you then have 3 offensive centers to find ice time for.

There are only two ways a trade makes sense... one is dealing Suzuki or JK along with a bigger salary (like a Tatar) to Clb to make the money work, assuming PLD wants to be a center. The other is verifying that PLD would be okay being a LW and then including one of Drouin or Tatar in the deal to make the money and position needs fit.

To be clear, I was not saying that Dubois would top out at 60 points. I was saying that in order to assess a trade value from the Habs perspective (to get the best deal possible) you would have to base his value on the fact that he has been around for 3 years and has only put up 60+ points when he had Panarin and Atkinson on his wings. I personally wouldn't include 2 Centers in a package for any player. It's just too much depth to lose. However if we could get PLD for a package of Danault + Norlinder + 1st or KK + Drouin + 1st I would be all for it. I just don't like the idea of giving up 2 very good centers and weakening our Center position that much for 1 very good center.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, campabee82 said:

To be clear, I was not saying that Dubois would top out at 60 points. I was saying that in order to assess a trade value from the Habs perspective (to get the best deal possible) you would have to base his value on the fact that he has been around for 3 years and has only put up 60+ points when he had Panarin and Atkinson on his wings. I personally wouldn't include 2 Centers in a package for any player. It's just too much depth to lose. However if we could get PLD for a package of Danault + Norlinder + 1st or KK + Drouin + 1st I would be all for it. I just don't like the idea of giving up 2 very good centers and weakening our Center position that much for 1 very good center.

Oh, I also wouldn't trade Suzuki + Kotkaniemi for Dubois. I was only pointing out that we can't judge our own players by what we think their max potential is and judge others based only on what they've done so far. If we're proclaiming Suzuki a future 1C capable of scoring 80 points a year, then the same can easily be said about Dubois. FWIW, Dubois's production per 60 minutes at 5v5 this year was 2.04 points/60 last season and 2.22 the year before, so not that different, and his most common linemates last year were Foligno and Bjorkstrand. He was probably the guy that drove that line more than the other two and frankly, if PLD did come here, I think we could find linemates for him that were just as good as Foligno and Bjorkstrand.

This doesn't mean I would trade for PLD. My hesitations again would be his willingness to play LW and how he fits into a line-up already featuring NS and JK if he doesn't and then a question of whether he's worth the higher investment in salary while Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are on ELC's and Dubois is making 5M. Adding Dubois means we possibly have to move one of Suzuki or Kotkaniemi to make the trade and to create a top 6 center spot AND it means we have to move out a salary like Tatar or Drouin to make the cap work. So are we really better off doing that? Straight up without consideration of contracts, I would take Dubois over Kotkaniemi. I would take him over Drouin or Tatar or Danault or Gallagher. But when you factor in the contracts and the fit in the line-up, I don't know that it works for us. I also think the need to address LHD is much greater.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

Oh, I also wouldn't trade Suzuki + Kotkaniemi for Dubois. I was only pointing out that we can't judge our own players by what we think their max potential is and judge others based only on what they've done so far. If we're proclaiming Suzuki a future 1C capable of scoring 80 points a year, then the same can easily be said about Dubois. FWIW, Dubois's production per 60 minutes at 5v5 this year was 2.04 points/60 last season and 2.22 the year before, so not that different, and his most common linemates last year were Foligno and Bjorkstrand. He was probably the guy that drove that line more than the other two and frankly, if PLD did come here, I think we could find linemates for him that were just as good as Foligno and Bjorkstrand.

This doesn't mean I would trade for PLD. My hesitations again would be his willingness to play LW and how he fits into a line-up already featuring NS and JK if he doesn't and then a question of whether he's worth the higher investment in salary while Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are on ELC's and Dubois is making 5M. Adding Dubois means we possibly have to move one of Suzuki or Kotkaniemi to make the trade and to create a top 6 center spot AND it means we have to move out a salary like Tatar or Drouin to make the cap work. So are we really better off doing that? Straight up without consideration of contracts, I would take Dubois over Kotkaniemi. I would take him over Drouin or Tatar or Danault or Gallagher. But when you factor in the contracts and the fit in the line-up, I don't know that it works for us. I also think the need to address LHD is much greater.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

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

Oh, I also wouldn't trade Suzuki + Kotkaniemi for Dubois. I was only pointing out that we can't judge our own players by what we think their max potential is and judge others based only on what they've done so far. If we're proclaiming Suzuki a future 1C capable of scoring 80 points a year, then the same can easily be said about Dubois. FWIW, Dubois's production per 60 minutes at 5v5 this year was 2.04 points/60 last season and 2.22 the year before, so not that different, and his most common linemates last year were Foligno and Bjorkstrand. He was probably the guy that drove that line more than the other two and frankly, if PLD did come here, I think we could find linemates for him that were just as good as Foligno and Bjorkstrand.

This doesn't mean I would trade for PLD. My hesitations again would be his willingness to play LW and how he fits into a line-up already featuring NS and JK if he doesn't and then a question of whether he's worth the higher investment in salary while Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are on ELC's and Dubois is making 5M. Adding Dubois means we possibly have to move one of Suzuki or Kotkaniemi to make the trade and to create a top 6 center spot AND it means we have to move out a salary like Tatar or Drouin to make the cap work. So are we really better off doing that? Straight up without consideration of contracts, I would take Dubois over Kotkaniemi. I would take him over Drouin or Tatar or Danault or Gallagher. But when you factor in the contracts and the fit in the line-up, I don't know that it works for us. I also think the need to address LHD is much greater.

I agree you shouldn't trade both Suzuki/JK. I would consider JK as part of the trade. Or if we did acquire Dudois without giving up either why couldn't JK play the wing? Dubois has established himself as a first line center JK actually hasn't yet. The wing would be less responsibility for him it might suit him better? 

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

I also think the need to address LHD is much greater.

Dubois + Werenski for JK + Byron + Romanov ? 

If MB is truly on the "win now" path he seems to be... it could be a gamble worth taking. 

 

17 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

JM2C, we're set for the coming season. 

Pretty sure MB agrees with - although - i do think if the opportunity to add a player like Dubois came along, he'd think long and hard about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been interesting. 

This is the team. At Cap.

Bergeron will maybe tinker but nothing major. 

It is all about the young guys growing and playing better and advancing more. If they do, this is gonna be a real good year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope we don't trade for PLD.     It would be short term gain for long term pain.    Both Suzuki and JK have more offensive upside than PLD.  JK has the size.    Yes they are younger and somewhat more inexperienced but not significantly so.    To me the move simply doesn't make sense unless your only motivation is "french player".

Edited by HabsAlways
Link to post
Share on other sites

We finally have two Centers that could be potentially be a 1a/1b scenario ... why give up one of those plus other assets for another 1a or 1b?    Use your expendable assets to fill in the roster around that ... wingers, defenseman etc.    Trading Suzuki or JK for Dubois will be akin to trading Sergachev for Drouin.   You trade the assets you needed for the assets you coveted and over pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kypreos says Dubois first choice is to play in Montreal. Suzuki is untouchable, but I would move KK for him. Problem is, we couldn't get him under the cap. My dream trade: Danault, Byron, Caufield, and every Habs pick in the next draft, all 7, we just keep the ones we have from other teams. God, I'm drooling. Imagine Suzuki and Dubois for the next 10+ years! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concentrate on that back end. That tendency to lose leads, often. Fix the back end and the offence will take care of itself. I am not convinced the D can allow Price to play the game he needs to for this team to be successful.

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

Kypreos says Dubois first choice is to play in Montreal. Suzuki is untouchable, but I would move KK for him. Problem is, we couldn't get him under the cap. My dream trade: Danault, Byron, Caufield, and every Habs pick in the next draft, all 7, we just keep the ones we have from other teams. God, I'm drooling. Imagine Suzuki and Dubois for the next 10+ years! 

Not me - Bergevin has taken enough risks to get this team percolating. How many years has it been before we’ve had our top draft choices succeed in our lineup? There’s no way I would give up KK, Caufield. I don’t deny PLD is a solid Centre 25 goal gritty and big but I like where our offense is headed. 

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

Not me - Bergevin has taken enough risks to get this team percolating. How many years has it been before we’ve had our top draft choices succeed in our lineup? There’s no way I would give up KK, Caufield. I don’t deny PLD is a solid Centre 25 goal gritty and big but I like where our offense is headed. 

I agree. I will add to this as well even if we did get Dubois for Danault ++ we would be so screwed cap wise I  2 years when both Suzuki and Dubois will be needing raises then the next season KK will be coming off what is likely a bridge deal. Also projections have KK as being am elite 1A or 1B center which is exactly what PLD already is. So why move additional assets just to get what we may already have in the system. Then making our cap situation almost impossible to navigate from there.

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...