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

Beaulieu Traded to Sabres for 3rd Round Pick


Noob616

Recommended Posts

Not thrilled with the return here. I guess it signals a Galchenyuk trade for a defenseman (protect Weber, Petry, and new guy). Beaulieu was probably the most attractive expansion draft player so I get the logic of at least getting something for Beaulieu instead of losing him for nothing, but this still means losing one of Hudon/Byron/Davidson/Benn as well. I'd rather lose Beaulieu for nothing to Vegas than lose Beaulieu and Hudon or Byron and only get a 3rd rounder back. 

Only other way I can rationalise this is if there's already something in the works to have Vegas take Plekanec or Emelin's contracts, but you'd have to imagine that would involve even more assets (Davidson/Benn?) going to Vegas for them to take on Plekanec or Emelin and their contracts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Noob616 said:

Not thrilled with the return here. I guess it signals a Galchenyuk trade for a defenseman (protect Weber, Petry, and new guy). Beaulieu was probably the most attractive expansion draft player so I get the logic of at least getting something for Beaulieu instead of losing him for nothing, but this still means losing one of Hudon/Byron/Davidson/Benn as well. I'd rather lose Beaulieu for nothing to Vegas than lose Beaulieu and Hudon or Byron and only get a 3rd rounder back. 

Only other way I can rationalise this is if there's already something in the works to have Vegas take Plekanec or Emelin's contracts, but you'd have to imagine that would involve even more assets (Davidson/Benn?) going to Vegas for them to take on Plekanec or Emelin and their contracts. 

Exactly how I feel, and its a weak draft too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the other thing to keep in mind is Jerabek's signing. Maybe they think Beaulieu is at best a 3rd pairing LD and Jerabek is cheaper + won't need to be protected in the expansion draft. Doesn't really make this deal any better in a vacuum but makes it seem slightly less crazy.

 

Also, I'm continually amazed at how well the Habs find undervalued defensemen on other teams (Petry, Weaver, Barberio, Redmond, Benn, Davidson) but continually undervalue their own (Subban, Barberio, Redmond, Beaulieu).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Noob616 said:

I guess the other thing to keep in mind is Jerabek's signing. Maybe they think Beaulieu is at best a 3rd pairing LD and Jerabek is cheaper + won't need to be protected in the expansion draft. Doesn't really make this deal any better in a vacuum but makes it seem slightly less crazy.

I guess I just thought Nathan would be worth more than a 3rd in 2017. They way everything is unfolding, I can see Radulov signing elsewhere and MB leaving Galchneyuk unprotected for LV to have on a free. :4224:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I guess I just thought Nathan would be worth more than a 3rd in 2017. They way everything is unfolding, I can see Radulov signing elsewhere and MB leaving Galchneyuk unprotected for LV to have on a free. :4224:

That would be the Bergeviniest thing ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am disappointed in this. I guess it's better than losing him for nothing and this must mean they are going to protect Benn? Since he didn't even dress for the last playoff game I could see him being undervalued by other GM's and nobody offering a lot especially when every team knows each others positions so they aren't offering much in some cases.

I was really hoping for more from him. He was given plenty of opportunity and sometimes looked great other times almost looked lost. I liked Beau hopefully Jerabek is good enough to step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

awesome trade

Basically gave him away for nothing. Another prospect with all this potential ( so called ) that either didn't develop on his own or the team did nothing to help

Unless there is some master plan we are not aware of, the D next year is going to be brutally slow . I guess MB looked at the Penguins and figured if they could win a Cup with that D then he could do the same

I even think the Drouin trade is going to haunt this team

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I guess I just thought Nathan would be worth more than a 3rd in 2017. They way everything is unfolding, I can see Radulov signing elsewhere and MB leaving Galchneyuk unprotected for LV to have on a free. :4224:

lol.If that happens the Habs lost Sergachev, Galchenyuk , Radulvov and Beaulieru  all for Drouin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, eldag said:

bahahaha   :7067:   this is even worse than I expected from bargainbin ........

bargainbin: "hey Goeff .... you wanna see me pull anudder rabbit out ah de chapeau?"

Molson: " sigh ... yeah sure why not? It cannot get worse can it?"

bargainbin: "presto and puff!!!!!!!! I turn de firs round pick into de turd round pick!!!!!!!"

Molson: " sigh ...... okay ... whatever .....and remember don't tell anyone where I am hiding!"

bargainbin: " o k .... je ferme la bouche .... but in case I need you .... you are still eyeding in Mike's basement n'est-ce pas?"

Molson: " You idiot ...... shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" 

 

:6280:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This trade doesn't make a lot of sense. The Habs are ok down the right side of the D, with Weber, Petry, and Benn. On the left side, however, we are extremely weak. Beaulieu, as he was last year, is probably the only guy with the potential to play next to Weber for a full season. Now we have Markov (who can't hold up for a full year), Emelin (who can't play consistently enough), and Davidson or Jerabek. As has been mentioned, we've given up Beaulieu for a low-value pick and now we will lose another asset to LV. If it's Davidson or Emelin, you have even less on the left side of the D. If it's Hudon, you've lost two good players for no return.

This also signals the Habs have no deal in place with LV. If they had a deal to get Vegas to select Plekanec or Emelin, then there would have been no need to give Beaulieu away. Of note, for those who think MB couldn't have gotten better value, SJ got a 2nd and a 4th for Mueller and a 5th.. so there WERE better deals out there for the D market. There might also have been a better deal in place for Beaulieu after the ED, once teams were trying to re-stock the players they lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing an Alzner would make some of this better. I think  there  is more  to this as Bergevin has moved some pieces that do not have a lot of support behind them. We have let 3 d-men go and may lose a fourth, but this was done, I  believe, because Bergevin wanted to protect what he believes to be a more valuable asset and he may not have been offered as much for any of his other d-men. I am more concerned about our depth than the loss of Beaulieu. Not sure how much of his off ice problems made this a necessity, but these are the apparent same problems through two coaches( ie. both CJ and MT appear to be on the same wavelength when it comes to the treatment of Beaulieu and Galchenyuk). I am sure CJ has been consulted on these moves as this is shaping his team for next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Habberwacky said:

Signing an Alzner would make some of this better. I think  there  is more  to this as Bergevin has moved some pieces that do not have a lot of support behind them. We have let 3 d-men go and may lose a fourth, but this was done, I  believe, because Bergevin wanted to protect what he believes to be a more valuable asset and he may not have been offered as much for any of his other d-men. I am more concerned about our depth than the loss of Beaulieu. Not sure how much of his off ice problems made this a necessity, but these are the apparent same problems through two coaches( ie. both CJ and MT appear to be on the same wavelength when it comes to the treatment of Beaulieu and Galchenyuk). I am sure CJ has been consulted on these moves as this is shaping his team for next year.

I'm not sure whether Benn is a more valuable asset to be honest. He played really well for us, but he's 30 and he has much less offensive upside. If the top 4 were Subban, Sergachev, Petry, Markov, then I think you could make an argument that you didn't need a puck-moving D man who could skate well. But our top 4 right now is presumably Markov, Weber, Petry, and Emelin, and that's a group that is slow and relies on the dump-out as much as the break-out. As it stands, I can't see having success with that top 4 and then a bottom pairing of Davidson or Jerabek paired with Benn. Look also at the left side of the D... Emelin is presumably on his way out in the next year or two, as is Markov. The only guy Bergevin could cite as "minor league relief" for the left side was Lernout, and he's not going to play in the top 4. Who exactly is going to play the left side of the D in 2 years? I think Bergevin has left us very thin.

The other thing is the actual trade. Let's say MB did decide Benn was the better player to protect. Even then, what's the upside to trading Beaulieu within the division for a 3rd rounder? The chance that pick becomes an NHL player is maybe 10%, and if that's going to happen, it's at least 2-3 years away. The way this organization develops prospects, the chances of this guy becoming an NHL regular is maybe 1%. Sure, MB might be afraid he would have lost Beaulieu for nothing, but now, he's already lost Beaulieu for a fairly negligible return AND he's going to lose another player. There just didn't seem to be a need for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of my analysis is there must be more that will shake out after the trade freeze as I think Bergevin will want to continue to build our defence. With Julien here I  would not be surprised to see a Bruin come our way especially with all these crazy transactions happening within the division. I won't be happy if we are strengthening the teams in our division at our own expense. I patiently wait to see what cards he is playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habberwacky said:

Part of my analysis is there must be more that will shake out after the trade freeze as I think Bergevin will want to continue to build our defence. With Julien here I  would not be surprised to see a Bruin come our way especially with all these crazy transactions happening within the division. I won't be happy if we are strengthening the teams in our division at our own expense. I patiently wait to see what cards he is playing.

I don't doubt MB will be active after the freeze. I think his goal is to swap Galchenyuk for a D man. There are rumors it could be someone like Brodin, Scandella, or Hamonic. But as I've shown, Drouin and Galchenyuk are fairly similar players, so if you end up trading AG, the end result is really a swap of Sergachev and a 2nd for whatever D man you end up with... if that's one of the above guys, then it's an abysmal deal. Imagine we gave up Sergachev, Galchenyuk, and a 2nd and got Drouin and Scandella. That would be awful. We'd have given up our best prospect (and possible #1 D man some day) for a #4 defenceman, not to mention the pick we handed out as well. It's simply terrible asset management. The only reason we should be considering trading Galchenyuk is if we get a #1 center or top pairing D man who is an equal/better (and equally young) player. You want to trade him for MacKinnon or Tavares or Draisaitl? Fine. You want to get a top-pairing young D man like Seth Jones? Fine. But not for a mid-level defenceman. Galchenyuk provides way more value to us than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

This trade doesn't make a lot of sense... As has been mentioned, we've given up Beaulieu for a low-value pick and now we will lose another asset to LV. If it's Davidson or Emelin, you have even less on the left side of the D. If it's Hudon, you've lost two good players for no return.

This.

I mean its one thing if we moved Beau for a 1st or a 2nd but a 3rd?  Chances of that becoming a useful player?  less than 50%  Chances of him helping within the next 3-4 years? less than 5% probably.  So what was the point?  If the whole Mantra is "win now" why on earth do you move a player for a pick that will not help now?

Let LV pick him. They're going to pick someone so now instead of possibly losing Beau we lose Beau AND someone like Hudon, Davidson, Emelin, or someone else we leave unprotected.  And the return is a pick that wont help us until long after Bergevin is most likely fired.

Thanks so much MB.  Your 5 year plan is working so well.  I particularly like how you "build through the draft" having now traded away our 1st round picks from 2016, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008.  You will most likely trade our first round pick from 2012 next, and of course there was that steal of a Norris trophy winner from 2007 you traded away.  Thats definitely the way to build a winner. 

Gainey and Gauthier must be pulling out their hair looking at what they left MB with and what he's done to absolutely destroy it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maas_art said:

This.

I mean its one thing if we moved Beau for a 1st or a 2nd but a 3rd?  Chances of that becoming a useful player?  less than 50%  Chances of him helping within the next 3-4 years? less than 5% probably.  So what was the point?  If the whole Mantra is "win now" why on earth do you move a player for a pick that will not help now?

Let LV pick him. They're going to pick someone so now instead of possibly losing Beau we lose Beau AND someone like Hudon, Davidson, Emelin, or someone else we leave unprotected.  And the return is a pick that wont help us until long after Bergevin is most likely fired.

Thanks so much MB.  Your 5 year plan is working so well.  I particularly like how you "build through the draft" having now traded away our 1st round picks from 2016, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008.  You will most likely trade our first round pick from 2012 next, and of course there was that steal of a Norris trophy winner from 2007 you traded away.  Thats definitely the way to build a winner. 

Gainey and Gauthier must be pulling out their hair looking at what they left MB with and what he's done to absolutely destroy it. 

2008 - we did not have a pick

2009 - Leblanc, never ever panned out

2010- Tinordi, never ever panned out

2011- Beaulieu, ?, we will see how this plays out, he was given plenty of chances, one good game 10 bad ones.

2016, you have to give to get, I believe we got a really good player who is young and can play as an elite NH player right....

2012, 2013, 2014 - if we have to package any of these or all of them to get an elite centerman or at least  1  I am all for it. I would like Tavares, RNH, Dechuene in that order.  our give away package smaller each time.

What hurt this team more than anything was the love of Therrien and the trade of Subban. I am sure if he had gotten rid of Therrien when he should have 2 or 3 years Subban would still be here.

Holding on to first round picks just because they are first round picks makes no sense. we have not done that well in the draft. With our first rounders

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Regis22 said:

awesome trade

Basically gave him away for nothing. Another prospect with all this potential ( so called ) that either didn't develop on his own or the team did nothing to help

Unless there is some master plan we are not aware of, the D next year is going to be brutally slow . I guess MB looked at the Penguins and figured if they could win a Cup with that D then he could do the same

I even think the Drouin trade is going to haunt this team

 

The big difference is that the Penguins have a high-octane offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

I don't doubt MB will be active after the freeze. I think his goal is to swap Galchenyuk for a D man. There are rumors it could be someone like Brodin, Scandella, or Hamonic. But as I've shown, Drouin and Galchenyuk are fairly similar players, so if you end up trading AG, the end result is really a swap of Sergachev and a 2nd for whatever D man you end up with... if that's one of the above guys, then it's an abysmal deal. Imagine we gave up Sergachev, Galchenyuk, and a 2nd and got Drouin and Scandella. That would be awful. We'd have given up our best prospect (and possible #1 D man some day) for a #4 defenceman, not to mention the pick we handed out as well. It's simply terrible asset management. The only reason we should be considering trading Galchenyuk is if we get a #1 center or top pairing D man who is an equal/better (and equally young) player. You want to trade him for MacKinnon or Tavares or Draisaitl? Fine. You want to get a top-pairing young D man like Seth Jones? Fine. But not for a mid-level defenceman. Galchenyuk provides way more value to us than that.

The Habs are seriously offensively challenged. If you are going to trade him, get someone who can fill the net.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...