Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

Yes, he was in Edmonton.  My statement of the Jets taking Petry back referred to them taking him as part of the return for Trouba, not that he would be returning there for a second stint with the team.  I should have clarified that better.

 

My bad maybe I wasn't to clear either... I was thinking the Habs could offer Beaulieu + Pleky  + 1st pick. Like I had said I didn't do the cap count for both teams nor really checked if the need for Jets to be right on their end... it was just a thought since there seems to be a lot of chatter out there about Nate on market 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ehjay said:

 

My bad maybe I wasn't to clear either... I was thinking the Habs could offer Beaulieu + Pleky  + 1st pick. Like I had said I didn't do the cap count for both teams nor really checked if the need for Jets to be right on their end... it was just a thought since there seems to be a lot of chatter out there about Nate on market 

 

Habs without Beaulieu: Right side strong, left side weak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ehjay said:

My bad maybe I wasn't to clear either... I was thinking the Habs could offer Beaulieu + Pleky  + 1st pick. Like I had said I didn't do the cap count for both teams nor really checked if the need for Jets to be right on their end... it was just a thought since there seems to be a lot of chatter out there about Nate on market 

 

But with that offer (which I doubt the Jets would take), Trouba's presented with the same situation that he faces with Winnipeg - he'd be the 3rd pairing right defenceman so why would he sign with Montreal?  That's where the Petry talk comes in - they would have to get him to waive his NMC and trade him somewhere to open up a top four spot on the right side for Trouba.  So now the Habs would be dealing away a player who just last year they committed to for six seasons plus come up with some sort of package for Trouba.  That seems like a lot of work for someone who has upside but hasn't proven a whole lot so far in the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Petry transitions over to the left side, could the argument be made that a top 4 D could look like:

 

Petry - Weber

Beaulieu - Trouba

 

Then you save Markov for the bottom pairing.  Of course, I have no idea who you give in a trade to get Trouba (Desharnais + Emelin).... :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, JGC21 said:

If Petry transitions over to the left side, could the argument be made that a top 4 D could look like:

 

Petry - Weber

Beaulieu - Trouba

 

Then you save Markov for the bottom pairing.  Of course, I have no idea who you give in a trade to get Trouba (Desharnais + Emelin).... :) 

 

Better throw in a 2nd rounder too, of course.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JGC21 said:

If Petry transitions over to the left side, could the argument be made that a top 4 D could look like:

 

Petry - Weber

Beaulieu - Trouba

 

Then you save Markov for the bottom pairing.  Of course, I have no idea who you give in a trade to get Trouba (Desharnais + Emelin).... :) 

51 & 74 for Trouba, I assume this is a joke offer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

As is tradition.

We should determine today what would be an official  "Ryder, Halak and a 2nd rounder" package for this year's edition.

 

I will start by suggesting :  Emelin, Fucale and a 2nd rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeLassister said:

We should determine today what would be an official  "Ryder, Halak and a 2nd rounder" package for this year's edition.

 

I will start by suggesting :  Emelin, Fucale and a 2nd rounder.

 

Desharnais, Condon, 2nd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Desharnais, Condon, 2nd

Alright alright, this one is good too.

 

But I forgot to mention that the goal was to get our hands on a top 6 FW talent or a top 4 Dman.u

 

Back in the days,  Ryder and Halak both had a better value than Desharnais and Condon  or  Emelin and Fucale have now. 

 

 

I think we should aim higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DON said:

51 & 74 for Trouba, I assume this is a joke offer? 

 

Ummm, yes.  Tough crowd.

 

My point is just because Trouba is a RD it doesn't mean there'/ no room for him on the Habs.  If Petry feels comfortable as a LD then I don't see why MB can't explore a trade for Trouba or even Shattenkirk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JGC21 said:

My point is just because Trouba is a RD it doesn't mean there'/ no room for him on the Habs.  If Petry feels comfortable as a LD then I don't see why MB can't explore a trade for Trouba or even Shattenkirk.

 

Does Petry feel comfortable there?  He hasn't played there long enough to really know one way or the other.  By the time he plays there and gets comfortable, Trouba probably will have been dealt by then.  I don't see Winnipeg dragging this out to the December 1 deadline and it's going to take way more than a couple of preseason games to know if Petry is comfortable - and more importantly, competent - on that side.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trizzak said:

 

Nashville? San Jose? 

 

Those would be my guesses.  Their backups are Marek Mazenec and Aaron Dell (who is basically another Condon from last year).  Given there will be other goalies available for free - Berra is on waivers today - any return would be minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2016 at 2:01 PM, Commandant said:

 

Desharnais, Condon, 2nd

 

Easily forgotten that Ryder was one season removed from a 30 goal season and Halak was putting up some of the best numbers in the AHL (despite not playing a lot of games). That's why those two were tossed into deals. Ryder had value despite being a UFA and being on a down year. Halak was an up and coming goalie (who should have been playing for Atlanta and included in the Hossa deal but because Gainey refused to add Chris Higgins it went to Pittsburgh).

 

DD/Condon/2nd is a close attempt but it's certainly a worse package. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Easily forgotten that Ryder was one season removed from a 30 goal season and Halak was putting up some of the best numbers in the AHL (despite not playing a lot of games). That's why those two were tossed into deals. Ryder had value despite being a UFA and being on a down year. Halak was an up and coming goalie (who should have been playing for Atlanta and included in the Hossa deal but because Gainey refused to add Chris Higgins it went to Pittsburgh).

 

DD/Condon/2nd is a close attempt but it's certainly a worse package. 

Pleky, Condon + 2nd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Easily forgotten that Ryder was one season removed from a 30 goal season and Halak was putting up some of the best numbers in the AHL (despite not playing a lot of games). That's why those two were tossed into deals. Ryder had value despite being a UFA and being on a down year. Halak was an up and coming goalie (who should have been playing for Atlanta and included in the Hossa deal but because Gainey refused to add Chris Higgins it went to Pittsburgh).

 

DD/Condon/2nd is a close attempt but it's certainly a worse package. 

 

DD isn't that far removed from good offensive years too, but yes Halak > Condon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

DD isn't that far removed from good offensive years too, but yes Halak > Condon

 

Indeed. The reason why these scenarios are laughable, of course, is less that the players implicated are garbage (although Condon is) than that they involve acquiring a  perceived 'core' player in return for multiple assets who aren't that. (Ryder was good, but a secondary piece; DD is useful, but only under certain conditions; and goalies, bafflingly, always seem under-valued on the trade market). That's why ehjay's Pleks scenario isn't laughable, while these other ones are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...