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

3 hours 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. 

Good Lord, I have no idea why Bergevin would consider all of those guys untouchable. Right now, the only players I PROBABLY wouldn't trade are Nick Suzuki, Jesperi Kotkaniemi, and maybe Brendan Gallagher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Good Lord, I have no idea why Bergevin would consider all of those guys untouchable. Right now, the only players I PROBABLY wouldn't trade are Nick Suzuki, Jesperi Kotkaniemi, and maybe Brendan Gallagher.

Well, in fairness, some of them probably have changed. I think Mete was called "untouchable" 2 years ago but i doubt he is any more.

I wouldnt have a true "untouchable" list but i always definte untouchable as a guy who you'd have to vastly overpay to get me to part with. So for example, Caufield right now is probably worth a 1st and a good prospect but I wouldnt trade him unless you gave me a fair bit more than that. his value, to me, is higher than what it is on the open market.

That said, my list of "untouchables" (meaning you'd have to way overpay for me to trade a guy) would be:
Suzuki  & JK

It would take a lot for me to move Caufield or Brook because i think both have limited value on the open market but I believe both will be very good.   A guy like Romanov or Poehling Id actually consider moving because i think their potential may not be as high as their hype right now (although we may have missed that window withe Poehling).

At some point mB is going to have to give up some quality to get quality.  You dont get the opportunity to make a Danault for Weise and Fleischmann deal too often. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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. 

 

 

We've already discussed that there's no such thing as an untouchable, but to me a virtual untouchable is someone who you wouldn't trade because you have reasonable grounds to believe their value will go up significantly and you won't get full value on your return to trade them now. In that regard, I'd list

 

Suzuki

Kotkaniemi

Primeau

Caufield

Romanov

Harris

Norlinder

Ylonen

 

I don't think there's a single guy on the roster who is not a prospect who is otherwise untouchable based on skill level now. Our best players (Price, Weber, Petry, Tatar, Gallagher, Danault, Chiarot, Drouin, Domi, Lehkonen, Armia) are all probably as good as they're going to get or close to it or maybe even a bit over the hill in some cases. So everyone knows their value and if you get a return on them, you could easily argue for trading them. I'm not even sure I'd throw Poehling onto the above list because he's looked less like he'll be a top end guy and more like a bottom 6 player in the long run. Which is not to say the above guys will end up being our best prospects and maybe a guy like Brook or Poehling or Struble ends up passing them, but the above guys are the ones who are most intriguing right now as ones who coule become top  forwards or top 3 defencemen or a starting goalie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/02/2020 at 6:18 PM, 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

well the thing is traded patch and end up with suzuki, who is already our best freaking player lol

So when the objection to blowing it up is "well,who is going to play next year", the answer is not just the already adequate "who cares", but further, the prospects we get who would ideally turn into guys you DO know, who are ideally better than what we have a la suzuki

MB fired and subban back home , for nothing, would be like the end of a disney movie hahahha.....I don't know what happened to him lately , but he is only 2 years removed from a 60 point-norris nominated season. he was fantastic in nashville until he got hurt last year. I bet if he came back here he would kill it, but who could really say. 

Anyway, we can logic this to death, but MB isnt getting fired, and that means we keep shooting for the middle and pretending to try to win, so enjoy the nate thompson sweepstakes and enjoy the same old same old for next year

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jeff33 said:

well the thing is traded patch and end up with suzuki, who is already our best freaking player lol

So when the objection to blowing it up is "well,who is going to play next year", the answer is not just the already adequate "who cares", but further, the prospects we get who would ideally turn into guys you DO know, who are ideally better than what we have a la suzuki

MB fired and subban back home , for nothing, would be like the end of a disney movie hahahha.....I don't know what happened to him lately , but he is only 2 years removed from a 60 point-norris nominated season. he was fantastic in nashville until he got hurt last year. I bet if he came back here he would kill it, but who could really say. 

Anyway, we can logic this to death, but MB isnt getting fired, and that means we keep shooting for the middle and pretending to try to win, so enjoy the nate thompson sweepstakes and enjoy the same old same old for next year

 

 

MB may get fired I just read that GM is in the process of installing VIP seating whivh run at 19000 per seat and you have to buy a minimum of 4 seats. They will be available starting next season and of they can't be half sold by the end of this season then I don't see MB remaining with the club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see this team, I have it broken down into tiers.

Tier 1 (this is basically our core, as I see it)

Danault, Gallagher, Domi, Drouin, Weber and Price.

Tier 2 (future core)

Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Poehling, Fleury, Caufield, Primeau and  Romanov.

The last two are the only prospects that I include in this tier, simply because I believe both will be with the club to start the next season. 

Tier 3 (very good, but not what I would consider core)

Tatar, Petry, Armia, Lehkonen, Byron, Mete, Chairot and Kulak.

These are good players, and I like more of them than I don’t. I wish I could include Mete in tier 2, but I just don’t think I can. I think I’ve seen enough of him to say that he lacks the offensive creativity and prowess to justify his poor defensive play.

I won’t dedicate tiers to the rest of our depth players and prospects, and I’m sure I forgot a name or two that belongs up here with the rest, but I think this is a serviceable breakdown.

One glaring issue here is the lack of defence in both tier 1 and 2. That would be my biggest concern, and I would be looking to address this going into the off-season. I feel like we missed a couple of great opportunities this past deadline, which is too bad. Personally, I would try packaging just about any combination of players from tier 3 in an attempt to find a quality LD. If we can fix our D without having to tap into anything from tier 1 and 2, I think we’ll be in a good place to continue building for the future without sacrificing being competitive in the present. Particularly if manage to drop a few more spots in the standings by the end of the season. If we can luck out and get something in the neighbourhood of the 5th overall, we might be in a good spot to nab Drysdale, which would be an absolute boost to our future D!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

Particularly if manage to drop a few more spots in the standings by the end of the season. If we can luck out and get something in the neighbourhood of the 5th overall, we might be in a good spot to nab Drysdale, which would be an absolute boost to our future D!

I really wish we would start shutting down players for the year.  Why risk playing Weber now? Why risk playing Petry so much? Or Price?

Shut down Weber. Make Petry a 20-22 minute a night guy.  Play Price no more than 1/2 the remaining games.  


That should go a long way to helping us sink a little lower in the standings & improve our lottery chances.  Maybe we'll finally benefit from the John Scott trade & win the lottery for 1st overall despite finishing several places back ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, maas_art said:

I really wish we would start shutting down players for the year.  Why risk playing Weber now? Why risk playing Petry so much? Or Price?

Shut down Weber. Make Petry a 20-22 minute a night guy.  Play Price no more than 1/2 the remaining games.  


That should go a long way to helping us sink a little lower in the standings & improve our lottery chances.  Maybe we'll finally benefit from the John Scott trade & win the lottery for 1st overall despite finishing several places back ;) 

I fully agree. At this point there’s no reason not to. No sense in risking anyone’s health at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, maas_art said:

I really wish we would start shutting down players for the year.  Why risk playing Weber now? Why risk playing Petry so much? Or Price?

Shut down Weber. Make Petry a 20-22 minute a night guy.  Play Price no more than 1/2 the remaining games.  


That should go a long way to helping us sink a little lower in the standings & improve our lottery chances.  Maybe we'll finally benefit from the John Scott trade & win the lottery for 1st overall despite finishing several places back ;) 

We already got lucky with JK drafting #3. Everyone does realize the lottery works both directions. We could end up 5 and end up picking latter than 5th not earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s a crazy draft related scenario...

Lets imagine the stars align and Habs win the lottery. The obvious thing to do is draft Lafreniere. But... would anyone consider trading that pick? Ottawa has three 1st’s, two look to be top 5ish. So the question is... Keep the pick, or trade it to Ottawa for all three of their 1st’s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

Here’s a crazy draft related scenario...

Lets imagine the stars align and Habs win the lottery. The obvious thing to do is draft Lafreniere. But... would anyone consider trading that pick? Ottawa has three 1st’s, two look to be top 5ish. So the question is... Keep the pick, or trade it to Ottawa for all three of their 1st’s?

Keep the pick, Lafrenier is considered by many to be a franchise player why would anyone give that up even for 3 good players none would ever be in the same class as Lafrenier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

Here’s a crazy draft related scenario...

Lets imagine the stars align and Habs win the lottery. The obvious thing to do is draft Lafreniere. But... would anyone consider trading that pick? Ottawa has three 1st’s, two look to be top 5ish. So the question is... Keep the pick, or trade it to Ottawa for all three of their 1st’s?

My first inclination would be to keep the pick. The Habs have been short of elite talent for so long, that a franchise player like Lafreniere could really help that. It also means that you might be able to trade two of Drouin, Tatar, and Domi if you so choose and still have a good top 6 on the left wing because Lafreniere is likely ready right away.

That said, it would depend on where the Sens are picking. It's feasible that they could have picks 2 and 3 in that scenario, as well as another lottery pick if the Isles miss the post-season too. If you knew you were getting whatever two players were next at 2 and 3, as well as another high pick, I wouldn't write it off completely. You could conceivably end up with Stutzle, Drysdale, and a 3rd player like Holtz, Raymond, Sanderson, or Lundell, and that's not a terrible haul. Again, you look at what Quebec made off with in the Lindros trade, and they probably won that deal outright based on Forsberg alone, even if Lindros was a stud. The problem is that if Ottawa knows they have 2 and 3, maybe they're not making that deal. I'm not sure I would either if I'm the Habs, but it would come down to a problem like whether you would trade a newly-drafted Crosby or Ovechkin in exchange for drafting a trio like Barzal, Pietrangelo, and Backstrom. Three really great players or one generational talent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

Keep the pick, Lafrenier is considered by many to be a franchise player why would anyone give that up even for 3 good players none would ever be in the same class as Lafrenier

 

15 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

My first inclination would be to keep the pick. The Habs have been short of elite talent for so long, that a franchise player like Lafreniere could really help that. It also means that you might be able to trade two of Drouin, Tatar, and Domi if you so choose and still have a good top 6 on the left wing because Lafreniere is likely ready right away.

That said, it would depend on where the Sens are picking. It's feasible that they could have picks 2 and 3 in that scenario, as well as another lottery pick if the Isles miss the post-season too. If you knew you were getting whatever two players were next at 2 and 3, as well as another high pick, I wouldn't write it off completely. You could conceivably end up with Stutzle, Drysdale, and a 3rd player like Holtz, Raymond, Sanderson, or Lundell, and that's not a terrible haul. Again, you look at what Quebec made off with in the Lindros trade, and they probably won that deal outright based on Forsberg alone, even if Lindros was a stud. The problem is that if Ottawa knows they have 2 and 3, maybe they're not making that deal. I'm not sure I would either if I'm the Habs, but it would come down to a problem like whether you would trade a newly-drafted Crosby or Ovechkin in exchange for drafting a trio like Barzal, Pietrangelo, and Backstrom. Three really great players or one generational talent?

All good points. On one hand how do you pass up a potential franchise level player? On the other hand, and this is just an example, but if you could add to the team one of the following... Mathews or Dubois, Tkachuk and Chychrun, which would make you better? It’s a tough, but fun idea to toss around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MALMACIAN_CRUNCH said:

 

All good points. On one hand how do you pass up a potential franchise level player? On the other hand, and this is just an example, but if you could add to the team one of the following... Mathews or Dubois, Tkachuk and Chychrun, which would make you better? It’s a tough, but fun idea to toss around...

The better option for me would be to go to Ottawa and offer either Drouin or Domi for SJ 1st + A prospect + Alex Formenton then you have 2 lottery firsts of your own and potentially a decent backup. Would it hurt sending either Domi or Drouin to Ottawa absolutely but maybe both lottery picks hit and your picking 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 or whatever but even if they don't hit the worst the SJ pick can end up at right now is 8th and the worst the Habs pick can end up at is 12th and this draft has a ton of tallent in the top 10-12 picks. But I think a trade like this has to happen now before the lottery is drawn cause no way the Sens trade it if the pick hits top 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

The better option for me would be to go to Ottawa and offer either Drouin or Domi for SJ 1st + A prospect + Alex Formenton then you have 2 lottery firsts of your own and potentially a decent backup. Would it hurt sending either Domi or Drouin to Ottawa absolutely but maybe both lottery picks hit and your picking 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 or whatever but even if they don't hit the worst the SJ pick can end up at right now is 8th and the worst the Habs pick can end up at is 12th and this draft has a ton of tallent in the top 10-12 picks. But I think a trade like this has to happen now before the lottery is drawn cause no way the Sens trade it if the pick hits top 5

Why would Ottawa trade away a lottery pick like that though? Would you trade away our lottery pick for a player like Elias Lindholm or Nikolaj Ehlers or Sam Reinhart or Clayton Keller (to throw out a few names of players around the same level as Domi or Drouin)? And then on top of that give away two prospects? If you're a better team like the Canes or Isles who just miss the playoffs and feel like you're closer to taking the next step, maybe you trade your lottery pick. If you're a rebuilding team like the Sens, why deal a potential top 3 pick for a guy going into his mid-20's who is 2nd line forward. If we've learned anything, it's that it's hard to grab elite players, and you don't give up your shot at elite for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

My first inclination would be to keep the pick. The Habs have been short of elite talent for so long, that a franchise player like Lafreniere could really help that. It also means that you might be able to trade two of Drouin, Tatar, and Domi if you so choose and still have a good top 6 on the left wing because Lafreniere is likely ready right away.

That said, it would depend on where the Sens are picking. It's feasible that they could have picks 2 and 3 in that scenario, as well as another lottery pick if the Isles miss the post-season too. If you knew you were getting whatever two players were next at 2 and 3, as well as another high pick, I wouldn't write it off completely. You could conceivably end up with Stutzle, Drysdale, and a 3rd player like Holtz, Raymond, Sanderson, or Lundell, and that's not a terrible haul. Again, you look at what Quebec made off with in the Lindros trade, and they probably won that deal outright based on Forsberg alone, even if Lindros was a stud. The problem is that if Ottawa knows they have 2 and 3, maybe they're not making that deal. I'm not sure I would either if I'm the Habs, but it would come down to a problem like whether you would trade a newly-drafted Crosby or Ovechkin in exchange for drafting a trio like Barzal, Pietrangelo, and Backstrom. Three really great players or one generational talent?

This.

Think back to the last generational talent (McDavid) drafted in 2015.  Assuming Lafreniere is going to be that good, you could have McDavid -  or trade for 3 picks with which you take Eichel, Marner and say, Provonov or Werenski.  I think I make that deal... although him being a home-town boy certainly complicates things. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Why would Ottawa trade away a lottery pick like that though? Would you trade away our lottery pick for a player like Elias Lindholm or Nikolaj Ehlers or Sam Reinhart or Clayton Keller (to throw out a few names of players around the same level as Domi or Drouin)? And then on top of that give away two prospects? If you're a better team like the Canes or Isles who just miss the playoffs and feel like you're closer to taking the next step, maybe you trade your lottery pick. If you're a rebuilding team like the Sens, why deal a potential top 3 pick for a guy going into his mid-20's who is 2nd line forward. If we've learned anything, it's that it's hard to grab elite players, and you don't give up your shot at elite for that.

Cause it makes as much sense as the trade proposed where we trade the 1st over all for 3 picks. Neither trade would ever happen. That was my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, maas_art said:

This.

Think back to the last generational talent (McDavid) drafted in 2015.  Assuming Lafreniere is going to be that good, you could have McDavid -  or trade for 3 picks with which you take Eichel, Marner and say, Provonov or Werenski.  I think I make that deal... although him being a home-town boy certainly complicates things. 

 

 

The only other point I'll make in favor of Lafreniere is that players in free agency might want a shot to play with him down the line, whereas it's less likely guys will be lining up to play with Stutzle or Drysdale, just based on name recognition. You hear guys talking about playing with Crosby or McDavid, you rarely hear people talking about playing with Eichel. So possible the name-brand generational player can attract a useful free agent or two down the line as well or encourage someone to re-sign here rather than leave...

Also possible that if he's the one guy in the draft who is clearly ready to step in next year that it changes your approach as to whether you keep Weber/Price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, campabee82 said:

Cause it makes as much sense as the trade proposed where we trade the 1st over all for 3 picks. Neither trade would ever happen. That was my point. 

first overall for 3 picks in the top 10, - including 2 that are possibly in the top 4?  That does make sense & while there's no way to prove it, id bet dollars for donuts that a decent number of GMs trade 1ova for 2,4th and 8th ova. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

first overall for 3 picks in the top 10, - including 2 that are possibly in the top 4?  That does make sense & while there's no way to prove it, id bet dollars for donuts that a decent number of GMs trade 1ova for 2,4th and 8th ova. 

For a franchise player like McDavid or Crosby potential! I highly doubt it they would be fired in a heartbeat for selling them that low

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

For a franchise player like McDavid or Crosby potential! I highly doubt it they would be fired in a heartbeat for selling them that low

I think a lot of GMs would take Eichel, Marner and Provonov vs, McDavid.  Yes, Connor is the best player in the league not named Crosby but those 3 guys give you an elite player at 3 positions which many GMs would prefer.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, maas_art said:

I think a lot of GMs would take Eichel, Marner and Provonov vs, McDavid.  Yes, Connor is the best player in the league not named Crosby but those 3 guys give you an elite player at 3 positions which many GMs would prefer.


 

You keep referring to the Lindros trade as a benchmark for what it would cost to acquire the 1st OVA pick however now your contradicting that by saying a GM would give up the 1st OVA for 2nd, 3rd and 8th.

Lindros went for 

Steve Duchesne
Peter Forsberg
Ron Hextall
Kerry Huffman
Mike Ricci
$15M cash 
1993 1st round pick (#10-Jocelyn Thibault) 
future considerations (Chris Simon 1994 1st round pick (#10-Nolan Baumgartner)) 

how is those 3 picks even close to what Philly gave up? which was

2 - 1st's 93 & 94 which turned out to be 10th OVA picks (Thibault & Baumgartner)
a #1 goalie (Hextall who was only 7 years into his 13 year hall of fame career)

6th OVA pick (Forsberg)

25th OVA pick (Simmon)

A good bottom 6 roster player (Steve Duchene)

20th OVA player in his 5th year in the league (Kerry Huffman although at that point was a throw in)

4th OVA pick in 1990 (Mike Ricci who put up 2 straight 40+ point seasons in his first 2 years in the league)

so lets summarize it a bit 

5 - 1st's

1 - 2nd

1 - Bottom 6 forward

1 - Starting Hall of Fame caliber Goalie

15 Million dollars

Yeah that definitely equals 3 1st's 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

first overall for 3 picks in the top 10, - including 2 that are possibly in the top 4?  That does make sense & while there's no way to prove it, id bet dollars for donuts that a decent number of GMs trade 1ova for 2,4th and 8th ova. 

 

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

For a franchise player like McDavid or Crosby potential! I highly doubt it they would be fired in a heartbeat for selling them that low

Lindros forced the Nords' hand, but they won that trade for a package of players, so I think that would give GM's reason to think about it.

And Brian Burke made a bunch of wheeling and dealing and got Tampa to give up the first overall for the 4th overall and two 3rd rounders, then turned around and traded the 1st overall again...

So there is some precedent for it.

If you want to trade Drouin or Domi for a  lottery 1st and two top prospects, it probably isn't ever going to happen but if it did, it would be for a pick that isn't a lottery pick yet (i.e. you traded one of those guys to a borderline playoff team like NYI or Car or Cal and it ended up being a late lottery pick when the team thought they would make the playoffs or you trade a guy now for a 2021 1st rounder that could be anything). I doubt many teams that have failed to make the post-season are giving up their 1st round lottery chance when they already know it's a lottery pick. That could come back to bite you very quickly. And I especially don't think they're doing it for a 2nd-line player like Drouin or Domi while at the same time giving up two other assets... agreed with Jedi that the 1st overall trade is more likely to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

You keep referring to the Lindros trade as a benchmark for what it would cost to acquire the 1st OVA pick however now your contradicting that by saying a GM would give up the 1st OVA for 2nd, 3rd and 8th.

 

Pardon me?   When did i EVER refer to the lindros trade in this discussion????? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Pardon me?   When did i EVER refer to the lindros trade in this discussion????? 

My apologies it was BigTed that referenced the Lindros trade but my point is still valid. If it cost so much for Philly to acquire Lindros it would cost equally as much for any team to acquire Lafrenier

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...