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

2019-20 If i were GM


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

With NJ's sell-off ongoing, lots of rumors that PK Subban is being aggressively shopped. Let's forget Bergevin's personal vendetta against Subban and let's say Bergevin gets fired and you get to be the GM tomorrow. Let's say you have the following deals on the table:

1. The Avalanche offer you their 1st round pick and Bowen Byram for Jeff Petry.

2. The Devils offer you PK Subban and are willing to retain 3.5M on his 9M salary (with two years left on his deal after this one) in exchange for a 3rd round pick.

 

So basically, let's say the Petry and Subban contracts are cost-neutral, albeit with Subban having one extra year left. You can swap in Subban for Petry and you give up a 3rd rounder to acquire a 1st and Byram. Let's say the two deals only happen if you do both. Do you take these trades? Or do you keep Petry instead?

This makes no sense at all, your trading away older players to build for the future, why would you bring in Subban at 31 years old.............

Sure lets do the Petry trade that makes sense....but subban he has fallen off the cliff as a hockey player and turning 31 in May also when you  weigh in on his perceived huge personailty certainly not worth it.  

I think this delay on making any moves though is also hurting. We have lost out on two good young dee prospect already in foote from tampa and Addison from pittsburg.plus first round picks, i am sure Tatar could have fetched us one of those deals. 

Imagine your Petry deal and if we traded tatar for Foote and that first.....

You would have 3 first round picks this year,

And you starting dee next year could be

Weber, Foote and one of Fleury/Brooks/Jullsen....On the Left maybe Romanov, Mete and Byram Chariot...Plus 3 first round picks...

Physically imposing on teh right side and 3 young skilled players on the left...would love to see 

Combos in 2 or 3 years of

Foote and Byram

Fleury and Romanov

Julsen/Brooks and Mete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, caperns61 said:

This makes no sense at all, your trading away older players to build for the future, why would you bring in Subban at 31 years old.............

I wouldn’t push Subban to the top of my list, but I think the strategy is sound. Essentially your flipping Petry for picks and prospects, then filling the void with someone immediately serviceable. Building for the future while maintaining competitiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, caperns61 said:

This makes no sense at all, your trading away older players to build for the future, why would you bring in Subban at 31 years old.............

Sure lets do the Petry trade that makes sense....but subban he has fallen off the cliff as a hockey player and turning 31 in May also when you  weigh in on his perceived huge personailty certainly not worth it.  

I think this delay on making any moves though is also hurting. We have lost out on two good young dee prospect already in foote from tampa and Addison from pittsburg.plus first round picks, i am sure Tatar could have fetched us one of those deals. 

Imagine your Petry deal and if we traded tatar for Foote and that first.....

You would have 3 first round picks this year,

And you starting dee next year could be

Weber, Foote and one of Fleury/Brooks/Jullsen....On the Left maybe Romanov, Mete and Byram Chariot...Plus 3 first round picks...

Physically imposing on teh right side and 3 young skilled players on the left...would love to see 

Combos in 2 or 3 years of

Foote and Byram

Fleury and Romanov

Julsen/Brooks and Mete. 

I think you got off on the wrong Foote, Nolan Foote is a forward that was just traded. Brother Cal Foote is the d-man. I had to make sure before I put my Foote in my..... I had heard New Jersey picked up a forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

No one seems to have a plan for that other than picks and prospects which they believe will make us contenders in 3-5 years we have discussed it at nausium.  I don't see how that will make us better down the road by giving up 2 of our best players with no proven players coming back

I think we disagree on what the two alternatives are. You're describing this as an all or none situation, whereby either you keep Petry/Tatar or you trade Petry/Tatar. But the "keep Petry/Tatar" alternative isn't what you're making it out to be. Sure, I would love to have a 29 year-old, 30-goal scorer and a 30 year-old #2 D man for the next 5 years at 5M each. but that isn't what's going to happen in real life. In real life, you get those players for one more year. After that, you get an aging Petry and Tatar and you get them in all likelihood on long-term deals paying them 7M a season give or take.

So when I look at the "keep Petry/Tatar" option, the first question I ask myself is this: are we going to be competitive for a Cup next year? If the answer is yes, then absolutely, you keep them. My answer is no. Bergevin has already made it clear he won't consider trading his 1st round picks or his best prospects for immediate help. He didn't do it last year. He didn't do it this year. So instead, he's watching our core get older without adding anything to the team to make it better. As Brian Wilde said, if you're a 96-point team when everything goes right like last year and you're a low-mid-80's team this year, then there's nothing that should make you think they'll be a 105 point team next year and a Cup contender.

If you're not a Cup contender next year, then the next question is whether it's worth keeping Petry and/or Tatar past that point. Again, without knowing what their contract demands are, my gut feeling is telling me no. With the Carey Price situation, everyone was clamoring at Bergevin for signing him to an 8-year 10.5M AAV deal. But if that's what Price wanted to stay, he had all the bargaining power. As UFA's, Petry and Tatar have all the power. They can and will get offers from elsewhere in the range of 5-7 years for 6-7.5M a season if they hit free agency. So the question is not whether you want them back for one more year or two more years at a reasonable cap hit. The question is whether you are or are not signing them to those big long-term deals that take them into their mid-to-late 30's. Yes, those players will still be useful early in those contracts and yes, they will likely be bad contracts that are hard to move for the 2nd half of those deals. So if you keep Petry and Tatar for next year, then it's decision time in 2020-21. Are you re-signing them to the big deals? Are you exposing them in the expansion draft? Are you trading them next year instead?

For me, I don't have much interest in signing them to the big long-term deals, especially when I know Gallagher and Danault are likelier to be staying and getting big long-term deals too. I don't think you can tie up 30M in Petry/Tatar/Danault/Gallagher as they all move into their 30's, that would be insanely bad cap management. If I'm not re-signing them and I don't think I can win a Cup with them next year, then why not trade them? That's why I think you should. At that point, the last question then becomes when. When is the best time to maximize trade value? Right now, a team acquiring either guy gets them for two Cup runs on reasonable salaries. If you trade them in the summer or the 2021 trade deadline, they get guys for one Cup run and they get them knowing they'll have to re-up for big money and that they'll have to protect them in the ED. Not as much incentive. We've seen what teams have given up for the likes of Zucker, Greene, and Coleman already this year. We've seen what Muzzin fetched last year at the deadline with a similar remaining contract to Petry and Tatar. Everything points to Tatar and Petry having the most trade value they will ever have in the next 18 months right now.

So I will ask you this, if you are not trading them, then your plan for these two players would be which of the following?

1. Re-sign them for big money, long-term deals next year.

2. Let them walk at the end of next year for nothing.

3. Trade them either this summer or at next year's deadline for a lower return than what you would get now.

If you're not trading them now, then you're voting for one of those options. Curious to know how you would intend to manage them and which of those 3 situations you see as being more favorable to an immediate trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caperns61 said:

This makes no sense at all, your trading away older players to build for the future, why would you bring in Subban at 31 years old.............

Sure lets do the Petry trade that makes sense....but subban he has fallen off the cliff as a hockey player and turning 31 in May also when you  weigh in on his perceived huge personailty certainly not worth it.  

I think this delay on making any moves though is also hurting. We have lost out on two good young dee prospect already in foote from tampa and Addison from pittsburg.plus first round picks, i am sure Tatar could have fetched us one of those deals. 

Imagine your Petry deal and if we traded tatar for Foote and that first.....

You would have 3 first round picks this year,

And you starting dee next year could be

Weber, Foote and one of Fleury/Brooks/Jullsen....On the Left maybe Romanov, Mete and Byram Chariot...Plus 3 first round picks...

Physically imposing on teh right side and 3 young skilled players on the left...would love to see 

Combos in 2 or 3 years of

Foote and Byram

Fleury and Romanov

Julsen/Brooks and Mete. 

I'm absolutely not swapping Petry for Subban and calling that even. But I'm also not saying I think the Habs should try to be bad next year. What I'm saying is that if the Habs decide to trade out Petry and Tatar and accumulate a nice surplus of picks and prospects, they still need someone to play the right side of their D next year and eat up minutes. Juulsen is a question mark. Even Weber is a bit of a question mark health-wise right now. Brook hasn't shown he's ready. Fleury looks like a 3rd-pairing guy. So yes, you could choose any three of them and call that your defence, but it's probably a bad defence. And yes, you could probably find a Folin or a Kulak or Scandella type player to fill a hole, but that's also a pretty bad option. Would I love to go out and find a quality top 4 D man to play there? Yes. But that kind of defeats the purpose of trading Petry if you're going to go out and give up picks/prospects to make that happen.

My only thought about Subban, who again would not be my first choice as a player right now, is that he's one of the few RHD out there who has the potential to play top 4 minutes well and who could be had for cheap. Based on what the Devils gave up to get him (i.e. not very much) and the fact they already want to trade him according to several insiders, I think he would be available for very little trade return. The major negative with Subban right now that makes him untradeable is that he's got that huge contract, so NJ would invariably have to eat some of it to deal him. But like I said, if NJ agrees to eat 3.5M of the 9M AAV, then you're looking at Subban for 5.5M a year for two more years. That's not an unreasonable gamble to take. Yes, you would still need to ditch Bergevin to even make this a thought personality-wise, but I'd personally prefer Subban at 5.5M than a Scandella/Kulak type at 3M or a Fleury in your top 4.

Again, I'm not doing this because I think Subban is better than Petry right now, quite the opposite. But if you can turn Petry into key futures and then acquire a player like Subban on the cheap, he's maybe a decent stop-gap for 2 years until the prospects you have or the ones you acquire are ready to go.

 

40 minutes ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

I wouldn’t push Subban to the top of my list, but I think the strategy is sound. Essentially your flipping Petry for picks and prospects, then filling the void with someone immediately serviceable. Building for the future while maintaining competitiveness.

Bingo. Again, nothing to do with Subban directly, but he's one of the few guys with top 4 potential who could be available for cheap, and if he's going to find his groove anywhere it's likely going to be Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, one last point about the "picks and prospects" bit... no one is saying that every pick or prospect will flourish, but each pick gives you a certain chance of finding an NHL player or a star. If there is a lottery draw with 100 tickets in it, no one is saying that having 10 tickets in the draw guarantees you will win it, but it gives you 10 times the odds of winning compared to having just one ticket in the draw. Same deal here. Go back 3 years ago and ask whether we would want Poehling OR Kotkaniemi OR Suzuki OR all three... having all three guys gives you a shot at at least one becoming a top 6 center, but no one could say then (nor now to be honest) which one it could be. Ditto for having Romanov, Harris, Struble, Norlinder, Brook, and so on as D prospects. Maybe 1-2 become regular NHLers but the more guys you have, the more the chances that you hit on one of them. And the bonus: they're all young, so if/when you hit, you get them for many years and you get them for cheaper than what you have to pay your 30+ year-old UFA's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I think we disagree on what the two alternatives are. You're describing this as an all or none situation, whereby either you keep Petry/Tatar or you trade Petry/Tatar. But the "keep Petry/Tatar" alternative isn't what you're making it out to be. Sure, I would love to have a 29 year-old, 30-goal scorer and a 30 year-old #2 D man for the next 5 years at 5M each. but that isn't what's going to happen in real life. In real life, you get those players for one more year. After that, you get an aging Petry and Tatar and you get them in all likelihood on long-term deals paying them 7M a season give or take.

So when I look at the "keep Petry/Tatar" option, the first question I ask myself is this: are we going to be competitive for a Cup next year? If the answer is yes, then absolutely, you keep them. My answer is no. Bergevin has already made it clear he won't consider trading his 1st round picks or his best prospects for immediate help. He didn't do it last year. He didn't do it this year. So instead, he's watching our core get older without adding anything to the team to make it better. As Brian Wilde said, if you're a 96-point team when everything goes right like last year and you're a low-mid-80's team this year, then there's nothing that should make you think they'll be a 105 point team next year and a Cup contender.

If you're not a Cup contender next year, then the next question is whether it's worth keeping Petry and/or Tatar past that point. Again, without knowing what their contract demands are, my gut feeling is telling me no. With the Carey Price situation, everyone was clamoring at Bergevin for signing him to an 8-year 10.5M AAV deal. But if that's what Price wanted to stay, he had all the bargaining power. As UFA's, Petry and Tatar have all the power. They can and will get offers from elsewhere in the range of 5-7 years for 6-7.5M a season if they hit free agency. So the question is not whether you want them back for one more year or two more years at a reasonable cap hit. The question is whether you are or are not signing them to those big long-term deals that take them into their mid-to-late 30's. Yes, those players will still be useful early in those contracts and yes, they will likely be bad contracts that are hard to move for the 2nd half of those deals. So if you keep Petry and Tatar for next year, then it's decision time in 2020-21. Are you re-signing them to the big deals? Are you exposing them in the expansion draft? Are you trading them next year instead?

For me, I don't have much interest in signing them to the big long-term deals, especially when I know Gallagher and Danault are likelier to be staying and getting big long-term deals too. I don't think you can tie up 30M in Petry/Tatar/Danault/Gallagher as they all move into their 30's, that would be insanely bad cap management. If I'm not re-signing them and I don't think I can win a Cup with them next year, then why not trade them? That's why I think you should. At that point, the last question then becomes when. When is the best time to maximize trade value? Right now, a team acquiring either guy gets them for two Cup runs on reasonable salaries. If you trade them in the summer or the 2021 trade deadline, they get guys for one Cup run and they get them knowing they'll have to re-up for big money and that they'll have to protect them in the ED. Not as much incentive. We've seen what teams have given up for the likes of Zucker, Greene, and Coleman already this year. We've seen what Muzzin fetched last year at the deadline with a similar remaining contract to Petry and Tatar. Everything points to Tatar and Petry having the most trade value they will ever have in the next 18 months right now.

So I will ask you this, if you are not trading them, then your plan for these two players would be which of the following?

1. Re-sign them for big money, long-term deals next year.

2. Let them walk at the end of next year for nothing.

3. Trade them either this summer or at next year's deadline for a lower return than what you would get now.

If you're not trading them now, then you're voting for one of those options. Curious to know how you would intend to manage them and which of those 3 situations you see as being more favorable to an immediate trade.

Or option 4 which you always over look being you resign both to 5 year deals and hope they take a bit of a discount then look at the options of moving them the next year or year after also if you let them hit FA and the ED pass before signing them then they don't have to be protected cause they are not under contract their vaĺue will not decrease next year or the year after so trading them now is not a necessity it's just what YOU think is best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Also, one last point about the "picks and prospects" bit... no one is saying that every pick or prospect will flourish, but each pick gives you a certain chance of finding an NHL player or a star. If there is a lottery draw with 100 tickets in it, no one is saying that having 10 tickets in the draw guarantees you will win it, but it gives you 10 times the odds of winning compared to having just one ticket in the draw. Same deal here. Go back 3 years ago and ask whether we would want Poehling OR Kotkaniemi OR Suzuki OR all three... having all three guys gives you a shot at at least one becoming a top 6 center, but no one could say then (nor now to be honest) which one it could be. Ditto for having Romanov, Harris, Struble, Norlinder, Brook, and so on as D prospects. Maybe 1-2 become regular NHLers but the more guys you have, the more the chances that you hit on one of them. And the bonus: they're all young, so if/when you hit, you get them for many years and you get them for cheaper than what you have to pay your 30+ year-old UFA's.

But that's really not true cause you get them for 3 years cheap then they need to be reupped and if they are proven at that time it could cost you 6-7-8 Mil for 5 years. Also what if none of the prospects or picks ever turn out now you gave up Petry a proven top 4 D man for a bunch of nothings not sure how that makes us better in 5 years and instead of 4 out of 5 playoffs missed now your looking at 9 out of 10. Now I ask you which would be your choice going for the playoffs every year OR risking everything for the future with no garuntee anything works out and missing 9 of 10 or more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Or option 4 which you always over look being you resign both to 5 year deals and hope they take a bit of a discount then look at the options of moving them the next year or year after also if you let them hit FA and the ED pass before signing them then they don't have to be protected cause they are not under contract their vaĺue will not decrease next year or the year after so trading them now is not a necessity it's just what YOU think is best

Imagine you are Tatar or Petry and are coming up for your last free agency in your prime. I highly highly doubt they are giving you back term AND money. Why would Tatar agree to 5 years and 5M. Maybe he does 5 years if you agree to pay him 7+M a year. Maybe he agrees to 5.5-6M a season if you sign him for 7-8 years. I see his ask being 6-7 years for 7M a year. At best maybe you get him 6 years at 6M a season. I don't see him agreeing to anything below what Drouin got.

In Petry's case, again, this is likely his last chance at a big deal. Maybe he likes it here and wants to stay, but again, I don't see him taking less than 4-5 years and I don't see him taking less than 6M. I would guess his ask will be 5 years at 7.25M a season and that he would settle at best for 4 years at 6.5M a season. I also think given that he's currently got some trade protection that he's going to want a NTC on his future deal too.

And yes, I firmly believe that a 29 year-old with two playoff years left on his reasonable contract has more value than a 30 year-old with one playoff left or that a 32 year-old with two years is more valuable than a 33 year-old with one year left. Look at the trades. Blake Coleman and Jason Zucker, both with a a bit of term left on their current reasonable deals fetched more than Tyler Toffoli, who's an expiring UFA. That's business.

I simply think you're under-estimating what the UFA's are going to ask for in two summers and remembering that you will also have Gallagher, Danault, and Armia hitting UFA status the same year. You won't be able to pay all of them. I'm not arguing for who you should or shouldn't keep here, but I guarantee based on what I know of Bergevin and the Habs that they will prioritize re-signing Gallagher and Danault over Petry and Tatar. Planning on all these guys taking "hometown discounts" is not a good plan. You have no control over that and it sets you up for them to squeeze you out and force your hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, campabee82 said:

But that's really not true cause you het them for 3 years cheap then they need to be reupped and if they are proven at that time it could cost you 6-7-8 Mil for 5 years. Also what if none of the prospects or picks ever turn out now you gave up Petry a proven top 4 D man for a bunch of nothings not sure how that makes us better in 5 years and instead of 4 out of 5 playoffs missed now your looking at 9 out of 10. Now I ask you which would be your choice going for the playoffs every year OR risking everything for the future with no garuntee anything works out and missing 9 of 10 or more?

I would rather miss the playoffs badly for 3 years and then make them for 3 years with a legitimate shot at a Cup in each of them rather than be a fringe playoff team like we are scraping to get in for the next 6 years. Just making the playoffs is not a success. That's what Bergevin would have you believe, but that's not the goal of a legitimate team. The Lightning and Caps and Pens and Bruins don't start each year thinking they'd really like to make the playoffs. They just did a feature on JIm Rutherford after the Zucker trade where they said every year he tells his team the goal is the Cup and anything less is a failure. That's the culture we need here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I would rather miss the playoffs badly for 3 years and then make them for 3 years with a legitimate shot at a Cup in each of them rather than be a fringe playoff team like we are scraping to get in for the next 6 years. Just making the playoffs is not a success. That's what Bergevin would have you believe, but that's not the goal of a legitimate team. The Lightning and Caps and Pens and Bruins don't start each year thinking they'd really like to make the playoffs. They just did a feature on JIm Rutherford after the Zucker trade where they said every year he tells his team the goal is the Cup and anything less is a failure. That's the culture we need here.

***** what MB wants you to believe. How does missing the playoffs for 3 years garuntee you will be contenders for 3 year? Can we say Buffalo, NJ, Edmonton? Hello nothing and I mean nothing is garuntee EVER in hockey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, campabee82 said:

***** what MB wants you to believe. How does missing the playoffs for 3 years garuntee you will be contenders for 3 year? Can we say Buffalo, NJ, Edmonton? Hello nothing and I mean nothing is garuntee EVER in hockey

so then what are you arguing for? genuinely curious, what is your position? you want to re-sign those 2 and keep going for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jeff33 said:

so then what are you arguing for? genuinely curious, what is your position? you want to re-sign those 2 and keep going for it?

I asked that already. His answer was that he was hoping they would re-sign after the ED for 5 years each at a hometown discount. My argument is that's not a realistic expectation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

***** what MB wants you to believe. How does missing the playoffs for 3 years garuntee you will be contenders for 3 year? Can we say Buffalo, NJ, Edmonton? Hello nothing and I mean nothing is garuntee EVER in hockey

It doesn't. I would still strive for the playoff every year. I'm just saying that rather than doing what MB says we're doing, which is to just do our best to get in, I think the goal should be to win a Cup. And if that means trading away a couple of vets now and decreasing our odds of a Cup for the next 2-3 years in exchange for getting better prospects and picks that could give us a real contender in a few years, I would do it. Of course there's no guarantee of winning anything. But let's aim to be a top 5 team in the league for a stretch, like TB, Was, Pit, or Bos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BigTed3 said:

I asked that already. His answer was that he was hoping they would re-sign after the ED for 5 years each at a hometown discount. My argument is that's not a realistic expectation.

my bad I guess I skimmed past that .

yeah , I guess I would have to agree that its not realistic to hope for that. Me personally I would rather have those 2 than Gallagher and Weber, AND the trade return would be way better moving those 2 as well. However MB is not getting fired and he is certainly not moving those guys so my take is the most unrealistic of everyone's :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

I asked that already. His answer was that he was hoping they would re-sign after the ED for 5 years each at a hometown discount. My argument is that's not a realistic expectation.

I love how I am misquoted LOL! Where did I say that I would do this? I said ANOTHER option was.... I also never used the term Hometown Discount you assumed that's what I meant but all I said was MAYBE they take a BIT less on their deal which I meant as a bit less than what other teams are offering like if Dallas offers 6.5 x 5 for Petry maybe either he at 6 x 5. My preferred choice is actually a combination of all of the options. I would prefer to ALWAYS try to make the playoffs but also ALWAYS look to make the team better using everything at my disposal such as OS, FA, Trades, waivers and undrafted players. I never once said I wouldn't trade Weber, Tatar, Petry or anyone I would IF it was a hockey trade meaning it's not making us worse now to be better in the future but improves us both now and down the line so IF the Avs offer is Girard + 1st for Tatar + 2nd then yes it's bye bye Tatar but if it's Byram + 1st + 2nd then no I pass on that just cause we would be making the team worse now just to end up with a late 1st a D man that looks like a high risk gamble and a late 2nd. Don't assume just cause I post something that that is what I would do sometimes like now it's just to show there is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak. I am not opposed to trading the likes of Tatar, Petry or even Price (except that that significantly sets us back as we don't know how Primeau will perform at the NHL level regularly) IF the return has a combination of prospects picks and roster players that isn't detrimental to our success in the short and long term

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

I would rather miss the playoffs badly for 3 years and then make them for 3 years with a legitimate shot at a Cup in each of them rather than be a fringe playoff team like we are scraping to get in for the next 6 years. Just making the playoffs is not a success. That's what Bergevin would have you believe, but that's not the goal of a legitimate team. The Lightning and Caps and Pens and Bruins don't start each year thinking they'd really like to make the playoffs. They just did a feature on JIm Rutherford after the Zucker trade where they said every year he tells his team the goal is the Cup and anything less is a failure. That's the culture we need here.

Is that with the current management or a different one? Because with our current management the 5 year plan would suddenly morph into a 14 year plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

I love how I am misquoted LOL! Where did I say that I would do this? I said ANOTHER option was.... I also never used the term Hometown Discount you assumed that's what I meant but all I said was MAYBE they take a BIT less on their deal which I meant as a bit less than what other teams are offering like if Dallas offers 6.5 x 5 for Petry maybe either he at 6 x 5. My preferred choice is actually a combination of all of the options. I would prefer to ALWAYS try to make the playoffs but also ALWAYS look to make the team better using everything at my disposal such as OS, FA, Trades, waivers and undrafted players. I never once said I wouldn't trade Weber, Tatar, Petry or anyone I would IF it was a hockey trade meaning it's not making us worse now to be better in the future but improves us both now and down the line so IF the Avs offer is Girard + 1st for Tatar + 2nd then yes it's bye bye Tatar but if it's Byram + 1st + 2nd then no I pass on that just cause we would be making the team worse now just to end up with a late 1st a D man that looks like a high risk gamble and a late 2nd. Don't assume just cause I post something that that is what I would do sometimes like now it's just to show there is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak. I am not opposed to trading the likes of Tatar, Petry or even Price (except that that significantly sets us back as we don't know how Primeau will perform at the NHL level regularly) IF the return has a combination of prospects picks and roster players that isn't detrimental to our success in the short and long term

Apologies if I misinterpreted your post, but I asked what your plan was and that was all you posted, which is why I assumed that you were rejecting the three options I posted for you and choosing the one you posted.

I'm also not opposed to asking for a combination return of players who could help now in addition to helping later, I just don't know which playoff-bound team is going to give you an asset that's useful to them now. For example, if you're Colorado, why give up Girard to get Petry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Apologies if I misinterpreted your post, but I asked what your plan was and that was all you posted, which is why I assumed that you were rejecting the three options I posted for you and choosing the one you posted.

I'm also not opposed to asking for a combination return of players who could help now in addition to helping later, I just don't know which playoff-bound team is going to give you an asset that's useful to them now. For example, if you're Colorado, why give up Girard to get Petry?

No worries I guess I also am to blame I should have been clear that it was just another option not so much my choice. Yeah I dont see any reason why they would give up Girard for Petry that's why I went with Tatar and it was only a hypothetical to outline what I would consider a hockey trade. Teams to target would definitely be Edmonton, Winnepeg, Chicago, Philadelphia, Florida, Arizona and Calgary. Teams I likely make pay more for players are Toronto, Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Colorado, and St Louis as these are teams that I feel will be pushed to the top with one or two significant additions like a Petry, Weber, Tatar or Price. But like I outlined before we couldn't be making the team worse in the short term either cause the only path to the cup is through the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I'm also not keen on bringing back Subban, but like I said, it might permit you to trade Petry for a nice return and Subban is one of the few RHD available who has the potential to replace Petry and come at a cheap price. Curious to know what other options people foresee to replace Petry or Weber if they are traded...

I liked your Dumba suggestion better. You get Byram + 1st rounder for Petry, trade Domi+ or Tatar+ (preferrably the latter) for Dumba as Russo suggested, and then sign Granlund on July 1st as a replacement winger. That gives you something like:

Byram - Weber

Chiarot - Dumba

Mete - Fleury

Kulak

Granlund - Danault - Gallagher

Drouin - Suzuki - Kovalchuk

Domi - Kotkaniemi - Armia

Lehkonen - Poehling/Evans - Cousins

 

The lines aren't set in stone obviously and could certainly change.

Reasoning: We get a lot younger with Byram, Dumba, and Granlund without gutting the team, meaning we'd still have a chance to compete for a wild card spot while the kids develop. IMO Granlund has the potential to be Tatar 2.0, I've always liked him and he's known to be defensively sound as well, so he might be the ideal replacement. Nashville just wasn't a fit for whatever reason and at age 28, I don't think his career is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChiLla said:

I liked your Dumba suggestion better. You get Byram + 1st rounder for Petry, trade Domi+ or Tatar+ (preferrably the latter) for Dumba as Russo suggested, and then sign Granlund on July 1st as a replacement winger. That gives you something like:

Byram - Weber

Chiarot - Dumba

Mete - Fleury

Kulak

Granlund - Danault - Gallagher

Drouin - Suzuki - Kovalchuk

Domi - Kotkaniemi - Armia

Lehkonen - Poehling/Evans - Cousins

 

The lines aren't set in stone obviously and could certainly change.

Reasoning: We get a lot younger with Byram, Dumba, and Granlund without gutting the team, meaning we'd still have a chance to compete for a wild card spot while the kids develop. IMO Granlund has the potential to be Tatar 2.0, I've always liked him and he's known to be defensively sound as well, so he might be the ideal replacement. Nashville just wasn't a fit for whatever reason and at age 28, I don't think his career is over.

Would definitely prefer Dumba over Subban too, although like we said, you'd end up having to give up Domi or Domi plus something else to get Dumba, whereas I think Subban could be had for a mid-round pick (i.e. a pick with maybe a 5-10% chance of ever being an NHL player). You give up more to get more. That said, Dumba fits into the picture of what we want to do better, since he's a guy you can keep around for 4-5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Would definitely prefer Dumba over Subban too, although like we said, you'd end up having to give up Domi or Domi plus something else to get Dumba, whereas I think Subban could be had for a mid-round pick (i.e. a pick with maybe a 5-10% chance of ever being an NHL player). You give up more to get more. That said, Dumba fits into the picture of what we want to do better, since he's a guy you can keep around for 4-5 years.

Absolutely, acquiring Dumba won't be cheap and we'd have to part ways with a valuable roster player like Domi, Drouin, or Tatar (and might have to add a little). Still the better option than adding Subban for cheap, I just don't think we're the perfect destination to restart his career and I'm guessing his comeback would be a pretty big distraction, which might not sit well with the current leadership group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id really love to know who MB considers to be 'untouchable' players.   We've talked about this before - that i dont think any player should be untouchable, but MB clearly does and id really love to know who he considers to be on that list.

In the past he's called the following players "untouchable"

Price
Weber
Mete
Domi
Gallagher

Now, some of that is timing - he called Gallagher untouchable like 3 years ago. Is he still untouchable? What about Mete or Domi?  I think Weber and Price are still off the table in his view. I would also imagine some young guys (Suzuki, JK, Caufield, Romanov) are untouchable to him too.


As we banter around trade ideas it makes you wonder who MB would absolutely not consider moving. Like maybe he sees Petry as untouchable seeing as how he's an alternate captain etc. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

Id really love to know who MB considers to be 'untouchable' players.   We've talked about this before - that i dont think any player should be untouchable, but MB clearly does and id really love to know who he considers to be on that list.

In the past he's called the following players "untouchable"

Price
Weber
Mete
Domi
Gallagher

Now, some of that is timing - he called Gallagher untouchable like 3 years ago. Is he still untouchable? What about Mete or Domi?  I think Weber and Price are still off the table in his view. I would also imagine some young guys (Suzuki, JK, Caufield, Romanov) are untouchable to him too.


As we banter around trade ideas it makes you wonder who MB would absolutely not consider moving. Like maybe he sees Petry as untouchable seeing as how he's an alternate captain etc. 

 

I think Petry might be untouchable due to Weber's health.  

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...