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

What should the Habs do with their 1st round pick?


BigTed3
 Share

What should the Habs do with their 1st round pick, assuming Dahlin and Svechnikov are off the board?  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. What should the Habs do with their 1st round pick, assuming Dahlin and Svechnikov are off the board?

    • Draft Zadina
    • Draft Tkachuk
    • Draft a center #3 overall
    • Draft a defenceman #3 overall
      0
    • Trade down a few spots and draft a position of need there
    • Trade the pick altogether for a proven NHL player


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, maas_art said:

On the flipside, do you think there's any chance buffalo would swap first rounders with us?   Say Galchenyuk + 3rd overall for 1st overall?
 

Even if they had some theoretical interest in trading the pick, I don't think our 3rd overall + ANY single asset in our system would be worth it if Dahlin's reputation among fans is similar among GMs. If we still had Sergachev then maybe Sergachev + our 3rd overall + some other picks/prospects would do it, but I don't think Galchenyk or even Drouin are enough to bridge the difference between 1st and 3rd

(Admittedly I don't follow draft prospects closely, so just going on what I hear plus previous precedent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play devil's advocate on BPA and "reaching" for a center - as much as we assume we can trade depth at wing for help at center and defense, it seems like a lot of other teams are in the same situation and teams with depth in these areas tend to "hoard" them. I get the feeling (and it's just that, absolutely zero proof) that the NHL is obsessed with building around centers and defenseman and feel the wing and goaltending can largely be cobbled together.

Center is more debatable, but with defense we see teams like Edmonton and Toronto desperate for help and with lots of assets on the wing they could trade for help, yet they've failed to really find help. MB seems to the only GM who trades potential franchise dmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, of consideration, is how fast we believe MB can turn around the team? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Arguably, MB might not be around if he doesn't turn it around quickly. I really feel strongly that we should keep the pick and take one of the expected 2, 3, 4 guys. I also feel strongly that we should trade Max this summer. I don't really like the idea of trying to rush our "retool/rebuild/whatever" by dealing the pick. Rushing to fix the team in 1 off-season sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. We didn't win the draft lottery, so we're not getting Dahlin. We're short a #1 center, a #2 center, and a top-pairing LD. These issues are not fixable with the snap of MB's fingers. I think you attempt to deal Pacioretty for a center prospect. You wait patiently next season and see where we draft in the summer of 2019 and how the team has improved/declined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great discussion guys & gals. Put me down for Zadina or Svetch, whichever one is left to us. I always think that you have to go with the BPA. You must get any player of top end talent when the chance presents itself - it is never the wrong move. As for our center needs, I'd rather we acquire 2 half decent centers versus signing anyone as a free agent for a ridiculous sum for 8 years. (Tavares)  Bozak anyone?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I think, of consideration, is how fast we believe MB can turn around the team? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Arguably, MB might not be around if he doesn't turn it around quickly. I really feel strongly that we should keep the pick and take one of the expected 2, 3, 4 guys. I also feel strongly that we should trade Max this summer. I don't really like the idea of trying to rush our "retool/rebuild/whatever" by dealing the pick. Rushing to fix the team in 1 off-season sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. We didn't win the draft lottery, so we're not getting Dahlin. We're short a #1 center, a #2 center, and a top-pairing LD. These issues are not fixable with the snap of MB's fingers. I think you attempt to deal Pacioretty for a center prospect. You wait patiently next season and see where we draft in the summer of 2019 and how the team has improved/declined.

See and I think if you trade the pick you're more likely doing so as a means of a longer rebuild.  I mean sure, you could trade 3rd overall for an established NHLer but i dont think even MB is that dumb.  3rd overall in this draft could easily end up being a dominant top 10 player in the nhl some day.  No one is giving us that in a trade. 


However, I think you could possibly flip 3rd overall for say, the islander's two first rounders (10 and 11)  Or say, a Vancouver's (7)  chicago's (8) or Edmonton's (10) + a young roster player and/or a 2nd rounder.    This may seem foolish but if your scouts are good, you potentially get 2 or 3 elite players instead of one.  The caveat is that 99% sure none of them play next year.  Maybe not even for 2 or 3 years.  The top 3-5 guys in this years draft all are potentially nhl ready now. Thats a huge boost and it also makes them much more likely to end up being legitimate nhl players vs prospects that may not reach their potential.  Marc Bergevin doesnt have time for them to pan out either. 


i think, in the end, chances are you stick with that pick. Its going to be a great player.  The only question I would have is if Timmins & co think that a guy like Kotkaniemi may be the steal of the draft & will be available way later than 3rd overall.  Then you consider moving down for multiple picks, because why waste 3rd overall, or you try to nab another top 10 pick (in a pacioretty deal possibly?) and get both of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maas_art said:

However, I think you could possibly flip 3rd overall for say, the islander's two first rounders (10 and 11)  Or say, a Vancouver's (7)  chicago's (8) or Edmonton's (10) + a young roster player and/or a 2nd rounder.    This may seem foolish but if your scouts are good, you potentially get 2 or 3 elite players instead of one.  The caveat is that 99% sure none of them play next year.  Maybe not even for 2 or 3 years.  The top 3-5 guys in this years draft all are potentially nhl ready now. Thats a huge boost and it also makes them much more likely to end up being legitimate nhl players vs prospects that may not reach their potential.  Marc Bergevin doesnt have time for them to pan out either.

Have we seen deals like this is the past? Turning the 3rd overall into, let's say... Jesperi Kotkaniemi and another prospect by trading down would be interesting, but... probably pretty darn difficult to pull off. I wonder if most of us are selecting "pick Zadina" because we believe it's the safest choice with no possibility of MB messing something up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Have we seen deals like this is the past? Turning the 3rd overall into, let's say... Jesperi Kotkaniemi and another prospect by trading down would be interesting, but... probably pretty darn difficult to pull off. 

There have been some.  But like you said, very difficult and risky.   Its easy enough to trade a later pick (like Arizona did last year) when a player (Lias Andersson) who the rangers wanted was still available. 

 

I wonder if most of us are selecting "pick Zadina" because we believe it's the safest choice with no possibility of MB messing something up.

most assuredly.  I think there's been such a history of messing things up lately that anything that takes some of the risk out is what we're all hoping for at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jeff33 said:

Who else thinks we are obviously going to take the grit and character of tkachuk 

I definitely can see it.   Maybe MB realizes he needs fresh tactics & will actually defer to Timmins & not add his 2c

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blues dont have a 1st round pick this year.  They also are needing a scoring winger.   

What about:

our 3rd overall pick

for

Robert Thomas + Vince Dunn

We get a young LHD defensive prospect (probably #2-4) and a top prospect centre.  They get a potentially eilte scoring winger.   

Its risky for both sides but we are able to fill our needs at centre via trade rather than the draft.     MB would be best served to wait to make sure Carolina doesnt skip over Svechnikov.  Some people think they will take Zadina because of his chemistry with Necas.    


I would give up Zadina or Tkachuk at this point for Thomas + Dunn but I dont think id give up Svechnikov for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I definitely think MB is drooling over Tkachuk, and I can easily see him preferring Tkachuk to Zadina. Tkachuk isn't a bad player, I just think Zadina is a bit better for today's NHL. If we were picking 5th or 6th and got Tkachuk, I'd be ecstatic. But not when you can get a more skilled player instead. Almost all mock drafts currently project Zadina to go #3, whereas Tkachuk is anywhere from #3 down to #7. He's not as widely viewed as being a clear top 3-4 choice.

2. The trade back is a problem because of what we want. We're in need of young skill, but so are the teams picking right behind us. Teams like Arizona and Detroit and Vancouver frankly don't need a Pacioretty with one year left on his deal. They probably don't need a Shea Weber on a big contract past his prime. Teams that need those types of players are picking in the 2nd half of the first round, and we won't be able to get a top-end center selecting there (i.e. Kotkaniemi, Veleno, Hayton, and Kupari may all be gone by then). So yes, maybe we could swing a deal with one of our vets going to the Oilers, Isles, or Rangers, but it's an outside shot, because even though those teams may want a veteran, they may also not want to part with their 1st round pick. If we're trading #3 overall to go down and get a center later, that's different, but I still see flaws with dealing away just because you don't want a winger. Like I said before, you don't trade down from picking a Selanne, Jagr, Ovechkin, Kucherov, or so on to go and get a Mike Richards or Brent Seabrook just because you need centers and D men. You take the skilled winger that's harder to acquire outside the top end of the draft and you find your center another way.

3. A more interesting method, albeit a slower way of re-building the roster, would be to trade a veteran away for a package that includes a 2019 1st rounder. Find a team like the Isles or Flames or Panthers or Blues or Avs or so on who are somewhat on the cusp and deal with them. It's doubtful those teams make a deep playoff run next year, so you probably get a pick in the top 20 and you have a decent shot at a lottery pick as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

1. Zadina can play both wings but is preferentially a RW, for what it's worth, even if he's a left-handed shot. He's more dangerous there, in the same way Galchenyuk is more dangerous on the right side too (even though the coaches play him on the LW outside of the PP).

I have no doubts that he can play both wings, and might even prefer to play his off side. Most forwards can play both sides. The point I was trying to make is that whether or not he can play RW doesn't change the fact that he shoots left. I'm not a hockey coach, so I could be way off on this, but it seems to me that there are tactical advantages to having a balanced left/right attack, along with disadvantages to not having it. Just like there are advantages and disadvantages on an individual level to playing on or off your natural hand. We don't have a shortage of players who can play on the right side. Drouin can play there, as well as Byron and Lehkonen, not to mention the few naturals. But the majority of our team, particularly our top 9, shoot left. I can only assume that imbalance stifles tactical creativity, and potentially leaves us a tad predictable. But again, I'm no offensive coordinator so I could be mistaken, or at the very least overestimating it's importance.

I'm not saying we should make our draft choices solely on what hand they shoot, or that we shouldn't draft Zadina or anything like that. Just that IMO, our lack of right handed shooters is a concern in it's self.       

21 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

2. Bouchard IMO will be a solid NHL defenceman. Big guy, booming shot. I'm not 100% sold on his mobility or passing ability as being #1 material. I think he's maybe going to top out as a good #2 guy. A Brent Seabrook or Jay Bouwmeester or Dion Phaneuf level player. I think he's a safe pick because I think his size and game will translate well to the NHL, but I don't know that he's got the top end skill of the other top 6-8 picks. I personally think Hughes has more upside, and getting to watch a bit more of Boqvist, I think he too has got more potential. Maybe taking the smaller guy doesn't pan out and you end up with a Mark Streit or Marc Andre Bergeron or so on, but in today's NHL, I simply think the smoother-skating player with better puck skill and passing ability is more valuable. Look at Ellis, Mete, Gostisbehere, Sam Girard, etc. These guys are useful players, and I think Hughes and Boqvist blow all those guys out of the water in terms of pure skill level.

Here I don't want to come off in defense of Bouchard, as besides the little I've read, along with his stats is about all I know. I have read a little more since, and have seen some concerns regarding his skating come up, specifically his first step. So maybe that could be an issue. I would just like to say that (a) all 3 of the names you listed have had excellent careers, and (b) none of them put up numbers even close to Bouchards.

I absolutely agree that especially in today's game there is more room for, and a greater need for smooth skating defencemen with puck skills and passing ability. I just hesitate to put too much emphasis on the offensive side of it. I also really like all 4 of the examples you have listed. But both Girard and Mete were taken much later than the top 10, Ellis maybe mid 1st round and GotsToBeHere I'm not to sure about. Great looking players, but size and strength is still hugely important defensively, and they're lack there of it makes them high risk. If I were picking in the top 5, I certainly wouldn't pass up a 50% shot at a Pietrangelo for a  20% shot at a Karlsson. I'm not saying any of the top rated D in this years draft compare to either one of them, just using them to make an example. Either Hughes or Boqvist could be the real deal and absolutely the best choice. 

21 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

3. I haven't seen enough of Veleno to know where he stacks up yet. From the little I've seen of him, he's a good skater but maybe lacks some of the offensive skill of the likes of Zadina or Svechnikov. So yes, IMO, there is a definite divide in skill level between the top 3 choices and the likes of Veleno and Bouchard.

Just a thought, if center or defense, as a position, holds more value than wing (in general), wouldn't a players competence in their respective areas of expertise offset, at least to some degree, their shortcomings offensively. I mean, Kane is considerably more offensively gifted than Toews, no argument. But who is more valuable? Now that is a question that could be discussed at length. Bergeron or Ovi? I'm just saying there is so much more to playing center than just the offence, maybe it's not so obvious the gap between them.

Also, curious that at 3rd overall we have a clear opportunity to do something we don't get to do very often, draft the best center available. Last time that happened turned out to be a really, really sucky year for centers. Could this one really be as bad? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I think your point about wanting right-handed shots is valid. I think that might apply more to the center position, to have guys who win draws in the end zones in the direction you want, as well as to have players who can dish the puck on their forehand each way. We've been too lefty-centric down the middle for a while. Point taken about wanting some right shots, but I wouldn't pass on Zadina or Svechnikov for that reason.

As for Bouchard, I have a hard time putting a lot of stock in points in junior. London is usually a stacked, well-coached team and so you can argue points might be inflated a bit by those elements. Its not to completely discard what Bouchard has done, and he's clearly a top ten pick in this draft, but I'm personally more intrigued by what Hughes and Boqvist can do. I put out those other names as examples of bigger players with big shots and strong pedigrees coming out of junior, but I'm not sure a player like Phaneuf for example would see his game translate into today's NHL as much as it did when he started out 13 years ago. If you look at the D leaders in points this season, you have guys like Gostisbehere, Klingberg, Karlsson, Krug, Barrie, Josi, Letang, Dumab, etc. These are smaller players or guys who are primarily puck-moving D men. I'm agreed with you that you don't choose a guy just cause he has an outside chance of doing what Karlsson does and I'd gladly take a young Seabrook on my team, but I guess that's where it comes down to scouting assessments from guys who have seen these players more than we have.

And as for position strength, Bergeron and Toews have absolutely been great centers. My question is this: if scouting rankings pretty unanimously rank Zadina and Svechnikov and Tkachuk ahead of Veleno and Kotkaniemi and Hayton, it's less likely those centers are in the class of elite centers. Would you opt for a player who projects as David Krejci or Sean Couturier over a player who projects as Patrick Laine or Kucherov just because they're a center? All good players, but there's a balance between taking the best player and taking the best player who fits your needs. Again, Kotkaniemi is really the wildcard here, because he's risen so rapidly of late. He's starting to draw comparisons to Toews or Kopitar, and I don't think we can ignore that. But is that potential enough to guess that he'll overtake the guys like Zadina or Svechnikov down the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

1. I definitely think MB is drooling over Tkachuk, and I can easily see him preferring Tkachuk to Zadina. Tkachuk isn't a bad player, I just think Zadina is a bit better for today's NHL. If we were picking 5th or 6th and got Tkachuk, I'd be ecstatic. But not when you can get a more skilled player instead. Almost all mock drafts currently project Zadina to go #3, whereas Tkachuk is anywhere from #3 down to #7. He's not as widely viewed as being a clear top 3-4 choice.

 

Zadina - 44 goals in 57 games played. Tkachuk - 8 goals in 44 games played. Isn't it obvious considering we can't score goals? Not to mention, if Tkachuk brings the same "attitude" to the game as his brother, I'm not too sure that's what we're looking for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, habs1952 said:

Zadina - 44 goals in 57 games played. Tkachuk - 8 goals in 44 games played. Isn't it obvious considering we can't score goals? Not to mention, if Tkachuk brings the same "attitude" to the game as his brother, I'm not too sure that's what we're looking for. 

For the record, I'm on the Zadina bandwagon as opposed to the Tkachuk one, but it's so hard to compare production across leagues. It's much easier to rack up goals in Canadian junior compared to US collegiate or Swedish/Finnish elite leagues. Max Pacioretty was a 1st round choice, but in his only season at Michigan he had only 15 goals in 37 games. Jonathan Toews put up 22 goals in 42 games and 18 goals in 34 games. Phil Kessel had 18 goals in 39 games. Ryan Poehling had 7 goals in 35 games in his draft year and 14 goals in 36 this year. All that to say that a lot of guys who have scored a lot in the NHL have put up modest numbers in collegiate hockey. I agree with you that Tkachuk doesn't have the same offensive upside as Zadina, neither in puck control nor with his shot. He's a bigger player, hits more, is maybe better defensively, but also takes more dumb penalties. All in all, Zadina is the better fit for today's NHL and for us in general, but the 8 goals from Tkachuk wouldn't be a turn off for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, maas_art said:

See and I think if you trade the pick you're more likely doing so as a means of a longer rebuild.  I mean sure, you could trade 3rd overall for an established NHLer but i dont think even MB is that dumb.  3rd overall in this draft could easily end up being a dominant top 10 player in the nhl some day.  No one is giving us that in a trade. 


However, I think you could possibly flip 3rd overall for say, the islander's two first rounders (10 and 11)  Or say, a Vancouver's (7)  chicago's (8) or Edmonton's (10) + a young roster player and/or a 2nd rounder.    This may seem foolish but if your scouts are good, you potentially get 2 or 3 elite players instead of one.  The caveat is that 99% sure none of them play next year.  Maybe not even for 2 or 3 years.  The top 3-5 guys in this years draft all are potentially nhl ready now. Thats a huge boost and it also makes them much more likely to end up being legitimate nhl players vs prospects that may not reach their potential.  Marc Bergevin doesnt have time for them to pan out either. 


i think, in the end, chances are you stick with that pick. Its going to be a great player.  The only question I would have is if Timmins & co think that a guy like Kotkaniemi may be the steal of the draft & will be available way later than 3rd overall.  Then you consider moving down for multiple picks, because why waste 3rd overall, or you try to nab another top 10 pick (in a pacioretty deal possibly?) and get both of them. 

Trading down for more picks is theoretically possible (happens in NFL all the time), but in the NHL it just seems like the value of picks drops off so fast it's hard to see any realistic "trade down" that really makes sense, even if you really trust your scouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

3. A more interesting method, albeit a slower way of re-building the roster, would be to trade a veteran away for a package that includes a 2019 1st rounder. Find a team like the Isles or Flames or Panthers or Blues or Avs or so on who are somewhat on the cusp and deal with them. It's doubtful those teams make a deep playoff run next year, so you probably get a pick in the top 20 and you have a decent shot at a lottery pick as well.

I suspect Hamonic is the last player ever traded for a first round pick without some form of lottery protection (other than perhaps deadline deals for teams who are clearly making the playoffs - and even there I think lottery protection will be the norm). With the new draft lottery format it's just way too risky, which is why almost all the first rounders traded this year included some form of protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

Trading down for more picks is theoretically possible (happens in NFL all the time), but in the NHL it just seems like the value of picks drops off so fast it's hard to see any realistic "trade down" that really makes sense, even if you really trust your scouts.

Right. In the NFL, there are so many more positions whereby it's harder to compare the relative value of players. One team wants a wide receiver really badly and trades up, another team wants an offensive lineman of which there might be a few of equal potential available and is willing to trade down. It makes more sense there. I think trade-backs still make sense in the NHL when you get past the first round and a half. The picks are more equilibrated there. But within the first round, there's just a huge drop-off in success rate that you really have to give up a lot to move up.

15 hours ago, Graeme-1 said:

I suspect Hamonic is the last player ever traded for a first round pick without some form of lottery protection (other than perhaps deadline deals for teams who are clearly making the playoffs - and even there I think lottery protection will be the norm). With the new draft lottery format it's just way too risky, which is why almost all the first rounders traded this year included some form of protection.

Even with lottery protection, though, the team has to give up a pick at some point. Look at the Sens in the Duchene trade... they seem to be keeping their pick this year at 4th overall, but who's to say they won't end up with the #1 or 2 overall pick next year, which then gets handed to Colorado. That's why I wonder about the possibility of dealing Pacioretty to a fringe playoff team like Calgary, Florida, or the Isles for a 2019 1st rounder... we gamble that might not be a lottery pick, they gamble that it might be one. If a GM were shrewd, he might also look at gambling on a 1st rounder even further down the line... say taking a 2020 or 2021 1st rounder from the likes of Anaheim or Chicago or LA, who might be good enough to get to the playoffs next year but where their stars are aging and might not be as good in a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Right. In the NFL, there are so many more positions whereby it's harder to compare the relative value of players. One team wants a wide receiver really badly and trades up, another team wants an offensive lineman of which there might be a few of equal potential available and is willing to trade down. It makes more sense there. I think trade-backs still make sense in the NHL when you get past the first round and a half. The picks are more equilibrated there. But within the first round, there's just a huge drop-off in success rate that you really have to give up a lot to move up.

Agreed, I could see trading a late first for two seconds, or a second for two thirds or whatever. But two latish first rounders are worth nowhere near a high first for example

 

 

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Even with lottery protection, though, the team has to give up a pick at some point. Look at the Sens in the Duchene trade... they seem to be keeping their pick this year at 4th overall, but who's to say they won't end up with the #1 or 2 overall pick next year, which then gets handed to Colorado. That's why I wonder about the possibility of dealing Pacioretty to a fringe playoff team like Calgary, Florida, or the Isles for a 2019 1st rounder... we gamble that might not be a lottery pick, they gamble that it might be one. If a GM were shrewd, he might also look at gambling on a 1st rounder even further down the line... say taking a 2020 or 2021 1st rounder from the likes of Anaheim or Chicago or LA, who might be good enough to get to the playoffs next year but where their stars are aging and might not be as good in a couple of years.

That's true, I suspect we'll eventually come to some sort of a "norm" around this (maybe that first eventually becomes a couple of seconds, maybe the pick keeps getting delayed indefinitely, maybe the team is allowed to acquire someone else's first, etc) but we haven't reached that point yet and something like Ottawa's deal could be possible to pull off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Windoe said:

How would you all feel about our first (Zadina), plus our 4 seconds (probably 1-2 NHLrs) to Buffalo for their first (Dahlin)?

I'd do it in a heartbeat, but Buffalo most likely won't. I don't think they need depth and trading a potential franchise Dman for 3 good NHLers probably isn't worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The only way I give up the 3rd pick is if Dubois or Draisaitl comes back the other way in some sort of deal . I propose the following trade .Draisaitl,Pulujarvi,and Darnell Nurse for Price,Weber and a flip of 1st round picks .So Edmonton gets the 3rd pick and Montreal gets the 10th pick .If Even Bouchard is still at 10th ,Montreal should grab him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Born-To-Be-A-Hab said:

The only way I give up the 3rd pick is if Dubois or Draisaitl comes back the other way in some sort of deal . I propose the following trade .Draisaitl,Pulujarvi,and Darnell Nurse for Price,Weber and a flip of 1st round picks .So Edmonton gets the 3rd pick and Montreal gets the 10th pick .If Even Bouchard is still at 10th ,Montreal should grab him.

I wouldn't make that trade... say the 3rd overall is Zadina. I'm not sure Bouchard will be there at 10 (most mocks have him going somewhere in the 6-9 range) but for argument's sake, we'll say he is. I think we can get a player like Draisailt straight up for Carey. I think the number of teams needing #1 goalies and really suffering because of a lack of a goaltender is there. Edmonton, the Islanders, Philly, Calgary soon enough, Buffalo, St. Louis, Vancouver, Dallas to some degree, Chicago if Crawford isn't healthy, Carolina, and so on. Someone will be desperate enough to give up a potential 1C for Price. Don Waddell is Carolina has already stated his #1 need is a first-string goalie and that he's open to dealing almost anyone on his team to make that happen. I also think we could easily get Puljujarvi + Nurse for Weber, maybe more. Edmonton likes Nurse but they aren't convinced he's a top pairing D man. Chiarelli also loves players like Weber. Puljujarvi has potential but there's concern he could be a bust like Yakupov too. So I think Edmonton would more than jump at Weber for Puljujarvi + Nurse. And obviously, that leaves a swap of 1st rounders for no reason.

IMO we would ideally be looking at trading Price, Weber, and Pacioretty in separate deals to maximize their value. But if we did trade them together, I'd be asking for the return you listed without giving up that 3rd overall. I think that's more than reasonable. So Price + Weber for Draisaitl, Puljujarvi, Nurse, and the 10th overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...