2017-18 The Rumors Thread

[maas_art]

19 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Dumab and Coyle would be another attractive return, although I don't know that either guy really has the potential to be a 1C/top-2 D, and Dumba is a righty. So again, this makes sense IF there are other deals in the works, like flipping Weber for a true 1C. 

For sure, I meant to note that about Dumba.  I think if you flipped Patches for those two you fill your #2c hole and your #1RD.  Then Weber can be moved for a #1 Centre +  _____  Not sure who does that (I mentioned in another thread I think that IF Chiarelli would even consider moving Draitsatl then a guy like Weber is exactly who he is looking for - and, honestly would probably change the Oilers' defense makeup substantially).  We'd be back to having a hole at LD but adding Draitsatl + Coyle + Danault as your centres (massive improvement) and ___ + Dumba as your #1 pairing (not a huge downgrade at this stage).

While Coyle is a decent player, I'd rather get a guy who's a bit younger or less proven at the NHL level but with a higher ceiling (like Barzal before this season). I keep coming back to a guy like Vilimaki in Calgary as a potential #1 D. Or a guy like Dubois in Clb would be fantastic. Gabe Vilardi? Someone top-end but with less to their resume where we have a legit shot at an elite player...

Totally. And i think this is how you win a trade like this.  You centre around a solid roster player but you get them to add in a blue chip prospect.   We've been on the losing end lots of times (The main deal was Gomez (salary dump) for Higgins (solid roster player) but we had to sweeten the deal with Mcdonaugh (Best player in the end).   Same with Recchi for Desjardins - that was the main deal - but we were asked to sweeten it with up and comer John Leclair.   Time for us to win one of those for a change. 

[habsisme]

But if you considered the habs a challenging team, even for an upgrade, would you trade Gallagher? Petry? Do we often see trades like that? It seems to me that if we sell, we sell, why bother with roster players. Let the GM feel like at the end of the trade there is no doubt that his team is better NOW and get MULTIPLE blue chip prospects. For me, all these players we're talking about, I'm thinking 2 blue chips and a first. Good enough for me. 

Only Ottawa made a stupid trade like that but Ottawa has its own reasons 

[maas_art]

8 minutes ago, habsisme said:

But if you considered the habs a challenging team, even for an upgrade, would you trade Gallagher? Petry? Do we often see trades like that? It seems to me that if we sell, we sell, why bother with roster players. Let the GM feel like at the end of the trade there is no doubt that his team is better NOW and get MULTIPLE blue chip prospects. For me, all these players we're talking about, I'm thinking 2 blue chips and a first. Good enough for me. 

Only Ottawa made a stupid trade like that but Ottawa has its own reasons 

Petry and Gallagher are two players I would absolutely move if the price was right. (Honestly id move anyone if the price was right but guys like Drouin, Galchenyuk, Mete, Lekhonen etc are probably not going to fetch as much as what they are worth to us).

Petry is getting older, so Id definitely gauge his value.  Gallagher is still young but he plays so hard and is so small that I think that will start taking a toll on his body sooner than on most. Right now his value has never been so high either. 

[habsisme]

6 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Petry and Gallagher are two players I would absolutely move if the price was right. (Honestly id move anyone if the price was right but guys like Drouin, Galchenyuk, Mete, Lekhonen etc are probably not going to fetch as much as what they are worth to us).

Petry is getting older, so Id definitely gauge his value.  Gallagher is still young but he plays so hard and is so small that I think that will start taking a toll on his body sooner than on most. Right now his value has never been so high either. 

no I would move them too for the right price. What i mean is, everyone is talking about getting a roster player for Pac... would we do that? Trade a prospect, and first and Gallager, for Pac? I wouldn't! And I don't think trades like that happen often. So I don't think we should focus on getting a roster player, lets get the blue chips and the picks, give the young guys a chance! 

I would do RNH for PAC but it really doesn't make sense for Edmonton (not my preference but definitely worth it). But why would Edmonton do that? If any team wants to go for it they will be willing to mortgage the future but don't also ask them to give you something today too... its just not worth it

[H_T_L]

https://www.tsn.ca/report-coyotes-f-duclair-requests-trade-1.959201

I'd kick the tires.

[maas_art]

16 minutes ago, habsisme said:

no I would move them too for the right price. What i mean is, everyone is talking about getting a roster player for Pac... would we do that? Trade a prospect, and first and Gallager, for Pac? I wouldn't! And I don't think trades like that happen often. So I don't think we should focus on getting a roster player, lets get the blue chips and the picks, give the young guys a chance! 

I would do RNH for PAC but it really doesn't make sense for Edmonton (not my preference but definitely worth it). But why would Edmonton do that? If any team wants to go for it they will be willing to mortgage the future but don't also ask them to give you something today too... its just not worth it

Gotcha.  For sure thats the real trick with trades at this time of year.  Its why we may well not see Pacioretty moved until the summer.   Does Edmonton want Pacioretty? Sure. (every team would).  Would they pay heavily for him in terms of roster players? Not likely. However, they may well pay for a guy like Weber.  Their defense is in desperate need for a #1D (especially RD).  Toronto too.  Either of these teams would likely give up a roster player (in a position they are deep) and multiple picks and prospects for Weber.

I agree with you that its a tough sell.  Teams that can afford to give up roster players (Arizona, Florida) have no need for Pacioretty because they are as bad as us.  Teams that need him can (mostly) ill afford to give up players.

but there are a handful of teams who can do both (Minnesota, maybe St. Louis) and there is always the potential of a 3 way deal.  

 

[BigTed3]

48 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Gotcha.  For sure thats the real trick with trades at this time of year.  Its why we may well not see Pacioretty moved until the summer.   Does Edmonton want Pacioretty? Sure. (every team would).  Would they pay heavily for him in terms of roster players? Not likely. However, they may well pay for a guy like Weber.  Their defense is in desperate need for a #1D (especially RD).  Toronto too.  Either of these teams would likely give up a roster player (in a position they are deep) and multiple picks and prospects for Weber.

I agree with you that its a tough sell.  Teams that can afford to give up roster players (Arizona, Florida) have no need for Pacioretty because they are as bad as us.  Teams that need him can (mostly) ill afford to give up players.

but there are a handful of teams who can do both (Minnesota, maybe St. Louis) and there is always the potential of a 3 way deal.  

 

Personally I don't want a player back for Pacioretty or Weber who's already over 25. If you want guys who are going to help you win now or guys who are going to be paid out big contracts in the next 2-3 years, then you may as well keep Pacioretty. The only real reason to deal Pacioretty is because you don't want to pay him the long-term big-money deal he's earned. When we dealt Subban, we got the older, slower guy on a longer-term deal. There was no advantage to it. So I don't see the purpose of trading for a lesser scorer who's in the same age range or being paid the same money. Either you're dealing for an upgrade (and which team is giving up a Stamkos or Malkin or Karlsson to get Pacioretty? None.) or you're dealing to change your window (i.e. get a younger, more affordable player with upside in the future). I think the 2nd is the goal with any deals involving Weber or Pacioretty. I see no value in dealing one of our key vets for a Kessel or Letang or McDonagh or Hoffman at this point because they don't address the fact we need to get players who can be good for longer.

So I'm fine with dealing with a contender now. Give them Pacioretty or Weber or even Petry or Price... but get their top prospects back or their 1st round picks. The problem is finding teams that have recently had top draft choices but are good enough now that they'll part with them to win right away. That's why I thought of LA with Gabe Vilardi and Clb with Pierre-Luc Dubois, Cal with Vilimaki, Stl with Robert Thomas and Jordan Kyrou. Nashville has Tolvanen, albeit he's a winger, which helps less. I really think Puljujarvi can be a target with Edmonton. He kind of fell into their laps as a pick, but probably wasn't the guy they were targeting, so I almost feel like they see him as a bonus asset that they might be willing to use to address their needs for an established winger or help on defence. The Isles are loaded with forward prospects like Beauvillier, Ho-Sang, and Bellows, even if we can no longer dream about Barzal. Carolina's young D men like Hanifin, Fleury, or Slavin would be other potential targets. I really think we need to go after a younger player (or two!) like this moreso than an established player.

[BigTed3]

According to multiple sources including Bruce Garrioch, asking price for Pacioretty is "a proven scoring forward" and a 1st round pick... it's an odd ask. Not sure what the proven scorer means. Does it mean they want an equal scorer like a Phil Kessel and a 1st (which isn't realistic)? Does it mean they want a lesser scorer like a Jordan Eberle or Jonathan Marchessault and a 1st (which is a mixed message as to whether you're still going for it or rebuilding and doesn't make sense)? Do they want a less experienced NHL player like Anthony Beauvillier and a 1st (in which case he's not really a proven scorer)?

Personally, I'd prefer a less proven player but with a higher ceiling.

[habsisme]

12 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

According to multiple sources including Bruce Garrioch, asking price for Pacioretty is "a proven scoring forward" and a 1st round pick... it's an odd ask. Not sure what the proven scorer means. Does it mean they want an equal scorer like a Phil Kessel and a 1st (which isn't realistic)? Does it mean they want a lesser scorer like a Jordan Eberle or Jonathan Marchessault and a 1st (which is a mixed message as to whether you're still going for it or rebuilding and doesn't make sense)? Do they want a less experienced NHL player like Anthony Beauvillier and a 1st (in which case he's not really a proven scorer)?

Personally, I'd prefer a less proven player but with a higher ceiling.

I agree

and to be honest, to me, this is finally the moment I lose COMPLETE faith in MB. I just thought that he had to acknowledge that the game is more about speed and youth now, and that rebuilding was necessary part. This kind of ask for Max is just telling me that he does not acknowledge either at all. He needs to be fired ASAP. He wants to retool and we are way beyond that. 

Why would someone give us a proven goalscorer and a 1st for a proven goalscorer (who isn't scoring)? I'm starting to think that MB is Trump level dumb

[kinot-2]

24 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

According to multiple sources including Bruce Garrioch, asking price for Pacioretty is "a proven scoring forward" and a 1st round pick... it's an odd ask. Not sure what the proven scorer means. Does it mean they want an equal scorer like a Phil Kessel and a 1st (which isn't realistic)? Does it mean they want a lesser scorer like a Jordan Eberle or Jonathan Marchessault and a 1st (which is a mixed message as to whether you're still going for it or rebuilding and doesn't make sense)? Do they want a less experienced NHL player like Anthony Beauvillier and a 1st (in which case he's not really a proven scorer)?

Personally, I'd prefer a less proven player but with a higher ceiling.

I would guess in the scheme of things, a 1st rounder, "could be" in the high 20's, say say 25-31 pick, which wouldn't be too bad. 

[habsisme]

I'll also add... if he wanted to re-tool, which is what this appears to be... why not trade Max for a center then?

 

I'm so tired of this team. I barely even watch the games anymore. I think I'm really done as a habs fan if we don't rebuild. I can't stomach Toronto having this much of a better team than us. If you go watch the games, you're a sucker. 

[Regis22]

7 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I'll also add... if he wanted to re-tool, which is what this appears to be... why not trade Max for a center then?

Because you have to find a team that's wants to trade its C .

http://torontosun.com/sports/hockey/nhl/garrioch-sunday-no-shortage-of-nhl-trade-talk/wcm/5d4cfc78-2d2d-4e23-a1e6-129383fd9008

 

What’s this about the asking price for Montreal Canadiens winger Max Pacioretty being high? Word from league executives is that Habs’ general manager Marc Bergevin wants to hit a home run if he’s going to deal the club’s captain. What exactly is that? The belief is that the Habs want a top forward and a No. 1 pick for Pacioretty, who has one year left with a cap hit of $4.5 million. The 29-year-old had nine goals and 13 assists in his first 41 games this season, so it’s doubtful anybody would give up much to make that deal

 

Me :MB should NOT be allowed to make any trades

[maas_art]

20 hours ago, Regis22 said:

Me :MB should NOT be allowed to make any trades

Well thats the real kicker, isnt it?  MB's team is sinking hard as he is 1/2 way through his 6th season but he's still the guy who has the power to make deals.  Worrisome to say the least.

We start our bye-week today and there's question of whether he will make a big change like last year (fired MT during last year's BW).   I think there's a decent chance he makes a move in the next few days.    How bad could it be? 

[maas_art]

Darren Dregger suggesting we arent quite at the point where trading Pacioretty is imminent but he thinks that could change before the trade deadline.  He says he thinks Max wants a trade but would never ask for one.

Asking price remains a scoring forward + a 1st round pick.   Obviously i imagine this could change depending upon what was offered but i think its funny MB has had a gaping hole at #1centre for the entire time he's been GM and now that he has a very appealing piece on the trade market, he says he is looking for a "forward."  It should be "1st line centre +_____ full stop."   If a team offers us a top line LW + a 1st will we take it?  How does that help us?

He isnt learning from his mistakes.   ive said numerous times that in a vacuum sergachev for drouin was a win-win.  They will both be top players in this league and both have had their seasons (struggles and triumphs) magnified because of the quality of team they are playing with.   BUT - for our team - this was a horrible trade.  We moved a top flight prospect at a position we're very weak at and got back a (more established) top flight young player at a position we've got too many players at. And then worse still, we asked him to play a role he seems unsuited for.  Its madness.  

[habsisme]

I agree with basically everything you said. MB really needs to go.

Also, i really think sergachev/drouin is worse than we think. How valuable are wingers really? In my mind they are at the bottom. So i agree that drouin will be a good player... its nowhere near the value of sergachev 

[maas_art]

26 minutes ago, habsisme said:

Also, i really think sergachev/drouin is worse than we think. How valuable are wingers really? In my mind they are at the bottom. So i agree that drouin will be a good player... its nowhere near the value of sergachev 

Its still early & Sergachev is no doubt benefitting from that lineup in front of him.  Drouin looks more and more like a winger but get him the right centre & he'll be a monster I am pretty sure.

But I agree totally if both players end up where they should (#1Left wing vs Top Pairing LHD) then we messed up.  If Sergachev falls back to 2nd pairing its probably a fair deal.  So still a little tough to call but I think FOR US - even a top 4 sergachev is more valuable than another #1 Left wing.

When the deal went down a lot of people expected it was a precursor to getting a #1LD and a #1C  but neither happened obviously. 

[jwlk]

53 minutes ago, maas_art said:

sergachev for drouin was a win-win

that was not a win win i would take sergachev over drouin in a heart beat, you say yourself, i'm not sure he will be a top player, i think he was overated by MB because of his birth place, everything else you said was bang on, but i would love to see him at wing, maybe he could be that star there, but in all fairness this team sucks

[maas_art]

8 minutes ago, jwlk said:

that was not a win win i would take sergachev over drouin in a heart beat, you say yourself, i'm not sure he will be a top player, i think he was overated by MB because of his birth place, everything else you said was bang on, but i would love to see him at wing, maybe he could be that star there, but in all fairness this team sucks

Dude, if you're going to quote someone, do it in CONTEXT.  

I did not say "sergachev for drouin was a win-win"

I said "in a vacuum sergachev for drouin was a win-win."  

Which is a HUGE difference. 

[ChiLla]

I hear Brent Seabrook was a healthy scratch last night, I'm sure MB is working the phones already

[Regis22]

In the short term TAMPA won the trade

37 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Dude, if you're going to quote someone, do it in CONTEXT.  

I did not say "sergachev for drouin was a win-win"

I said "in a vacuum sergachev for drouin was a win-win."  

Which is a HUGE difference. 

In the short Term , TAMPA won .

We'll have to see how these two work out going forward

[jwlk]

2 hours ago, maas_art said:

Dude, if you're going to quote someone, do it in CONTEXT.  

I did not say "sergachev for drouin was a win-win"

I said "in a vacuum sergachev for drouin was a win-win."  

Which is a HUGE difference. 

my bad,just really wish we could stop getting fleeced in these deals

[maas_art]

1 hour ago, Regis22 said:

In the short Term , TAMPA won .

We'll have to see how these two work out going forward

No doubt. I think the in long term they may have won too because Sergachev fits our needs more than another LW, regardless of how talented he is.  The point was though, "in a vaccuum" they were probably worth the same.  If we had LW needs we may have won the deal.  Based on real time needs though, we look to have really messed up unless either a) MS doesnt pan out as a top pairing  or  b ) drouin suddenly adjusts to centre. 

[jwlk]

1 minute ago, maas_art said:

No doubt. I think the in long term they may have won too because Sergachev fits our needs more than another LW, regardless of how talented he is.  The point was though, "in a vaccuum" they were probably worth the same.  If we had LW needs we may have won the deal.  Based on real time needs though, we look to have really messed up unless either a) MS doesnt pan out as a top pairing  or  b ) drouin suddenly adjusts to centre. 

maybe C ) he's put back to wing and flourishes

[maas_art]

Just now, jwlk said:

my bad,just really wish we could stop getting fleeced in these deals

No worries.  Honestly I agree with you  - as I noted in the reply above.  Its not that it was a bad deal in itself, but when you have NO puck moving LD you dont trade you only blue chip prospect for yet another LW.   Drouin, Galchenyuk, Pacioretty are potentially #1 left wings on just about any team in the league.  Even guys like Lehkonen, Hudon etc are top 6 LW.  So we have no good LD prospects (Mete excepted) and like a zillion LW.   Totally bad move by MB.  

[maas_art]

Just now, jwlk said:

maybe C ) he's put back to wing and flourishes

Sure but then that requires us to get a #1 Centre - which i think we need - but again, makes the trade worse because you trade a position of weakness for a position you are already strong at.