Jump to content
Fanpuck33

Permanent Rumour Thread

Recommended Posts

I still don't see how a younger winger who has 70+ points in all three years of his career, and 80+ last year..... is worth Pacioretty (who has zero 70 point seasons in his career) in a straight up trade. 

 

That's madness.

 

Bergevin would be laughed off the phone for proposing it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

Let's just say Pacioretty's trade value isn't at its peak right now considering the year he had - that made it go down, not up.  Panarin, meanwhile, left Chicago and excelled which proves that he's not just a 'system' player.  That only helps his value.  Let's look at it this way - one year from now, Panarin's probably looking at upwards of $10 million a year on his next contract.  Pacioretty's getting a raise but his next contract isn't coming close to that.  If they're not close to equal on their next contract a year from now, they're not equal in a trade.

How much does 2:00 on the PK/game vs none on the PK factor in to contracts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I still don't see how a younger winger who has 70+ points in all three years of his career, and 80+ last year..... is worth Pacioretty (who has zero 70 point seasons in his career) in a straight up trade. 

 

That's madness.

 

Bergevin would be laughed off the phone for proposing it. 

 

Panarin's last 3 seasons: 88 goals in 243 games

Pacioretty's last 3 seasons: 82 goals in 227 games

 

They are pretty close to the same level of goal scorer, but Panarin is a much better playmaker. But nah, same value.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, we can all agree to disagree, but the trade value is NOT CLOSE.

 

It would take multiple pieces plus Pacs to get Panarin. Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheDriveFor25 said:

Ok, we can all agree to disagree, but the trade value is NOT CLOSE.

 

It would take multiple pieces plus Pacs to get Panarin. Fact.

Yes but we would also be getting multiple pieces back and not just Panarin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Yes but we would also be getting multiple pieces back and not just Panarin. 

 

Do you seriously believe Pacioretty and Panarin are equal players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think back to the Saad for Panarin deal with Chicago. It involved some prospects and draft picks going both ways. I think Pacioretty is better than Saad. I also don’t think it makes sense for Montreal to trade Pacioretty and anything else for only Panarin since his contract ends after this season as well. The trade would most likely include two or three players going each way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habopotamus said:

download.jpg

Yup I agree, how he ever coached a cup winning team still baffles us all.:spamafote:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DON said:

Yup I agree, how he ever coached a cup winning team still baffles us all.:spamafote:

I don't like Torts, but watch that game and tell me Pacioretty isn't dragging ass out there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Habopotamus said:

I don't like Torts, but watch that game and tell me Pacioretty isn't dragging ass out there

I have seen #67 play a game or two before and mailing it in, isn't what he does. He is not a Brett Hull-type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DON said:

I have seen #67 play a game or two before and mailing it in, isn't what he does. He is not a Brett Hull-type.

That's my view too. Last year, for example, he tries being a play maker for a while and he also tried being the energy/puck-hound on his line to contribute otherwise than with scoring (because he wasn't scoring)

It screwed up his game, but he was trying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He tripled his hits totals per game last season. 

 

His scoring fell off the map. His shooting percentage plummetted like a rock. 

 

It wasn't lack of effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where Ouellet would fit in (he's a fringe guy at best) but Rieder could be an interesting fit as a speedy 2nd/3rd liner.  The Habs are pretty deep already on the wings, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

I'm not sure where Ouellet would fit in (he's a fringe guy at best) but Rieder could be an interesting fit as a speedy 2nd/3rd liner.  The Habs are pretty deep already on the wings, however.

He could be signed and sent to Laval, like Deslaurier last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

He could be signed and sent to Laval, like Deslaurier last year.

 

How many left-shot d-men do they need in Laval?  They already have six (assuming Valiev/Taormina clear waivers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As many as they can get:

1) they haven't hired Montreal & Laval D-coaches

2) they need to rebalance, rebuild their D prospect pool

3) we will lose a D or two through waivers

4) with the upcoming expansion draft we will lose a roster player too.

Might as well stockpile LDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

As many as they can get:

1) they haven't hired Montreal & Laval D-coaches

2) they need to rebalance, rebuild their D prospect pool

3) we will lose a D or two through waivers

4) with the upcoming expansion draft we will lose a roster player too.

Might as well stockpile LDs

 

1) I don't think having a D coach or not having one should impact their pursuit of a player.

2) I agree that they need to rebuild their prospect pool but Ouellet is not a prospect - he's a fringe NHL player.

3) They might lose a D on waivers - Taormina will go unclaimed and I think Valiev will as well.  Lernout's (RD) a little iffy - all the more reason to focus on getting a RD (or two...or three), not more LD's.

4) Chances are that Ouellet, if signed, wouldn't still be in the organization by the expansion draft so he wouldn't be a factor for it.  He'd get a one-year deal and then with arbitration eligibility next summer, would probably get non-tendered (as we saw a lot of on Monday).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon Despres, another LHD, is also out there asking for an AHL contract to play in Laval

 

He had a bunch of concussions, went to Europe last year, and wants a path back to the NHL

 

No word if the Habs are interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the Roussel and Rieder talk makes me think there has to be a trade coming soon to clear out some wingers, and if Pacioretty is the one getting traded, we won't be getting a forward back for him. Roussel is a gritty LW, Rieder can play wherever.

 

There's a serious logjam on the left when you look at either natural left wingers or guys who can play the left side: Pacioretty, Domi, Hudon, Lehkonen, Deslauriers, Drouin, Byron, Danault, and DLR. Drouin can play RW (and supposedly C), Byon can play RW, Danault can play C, and DLR can allegedly play C. 9 guys for four spots.

 

There's too many bodies before we even get into adding someone. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

All the Roussel and Rieder talk makes me think there has to be a trade coming soon to clear out some wingers, and if Pacioretty is the one getting traded, we won't be getting a forward back for him. Roussel is a gritty LW, Rieder can play wherever.

 

There's a serious logjam on the left when you look at either natural left wingers or guys who can play the left side: Pacioretty, Domi, Hudon, Lehkonen, Deslauriers, Drouin, Byron, Danault, and DLR. Drouin can play RW (and supposedly C), Byon can play RW, Danault can play C, and DLR can allegedly play C. 9 guys for four spots.

 

There's too many bodies before we even get into adding someone. 

 

 

Here's a thought,   We keep putting center onto the wing why don't we move winger's onto center. Lets put Pacioretty as our top center? I think I got heat stroke if I am thinking like this.

 

Domi  - Pacioretty  - Drouin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do it, Marc. No Tavares, no other options to get better quickly. Just take the assets for a cap dump and hope that you #LoseForHughes.

 

Edit: And Hossa is a Blackhawk! Your favourite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

 

Do it, Marc. No Tavares, no other options to get better quickly. Just take the assets for a cap dump and hope that you #LoseForHughes.

 

Edit: And Hossa is a Blackhawk! Your favourite!

 

I'm not a huge fan of the 3 years.

 

I like the ideas I wrote about.... Spezza, Ennis, Hagelin (1 year deals) or Callahan (2 years)..... by 2020-21 I want to be ready to start competing again. 

 

Cobourn and Girardi would be another two good ones. 

 

Matt Moulson is another (1 year, $5 million), but the sabres don't need space. 

 

Kronwall and Nyquist but the Wings don't need space. 

 

Lehtera from the Flyers

 

Mason from the Jets, but we don't have room for goalies. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Metallica said:

Here's a thought,   We keep putting center onto the wing why don't we move winger's onto center. Lets put Pacioretty as our top center? I think I got heat stroke if I am thinking like this.

 

Domi  - Pacioretty  - Drouin 

 

:lol: Why the hell not? Worth a try anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×