Jump to content
Fanpuck33

Permanent Rumour Thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DON said:

He wouldn't be resigned, like I said it just doesn't happen.

PM Koivu can you give me one example of it happening (quiet Commandant, am sure you have one insignificant example from 10 or 20 years ago)

 

I can think of two pretty significant ones (players with more established track records than Plekanec) off the top of my head.

 

And in today's episode of Where in the World is Marc Bergevin, he finds himself with Scott Mellanby watching Minnesota-New Jersey.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I can think of two pretty significant ones (players with more established track records than Plekanec) off the top of my head.

OK, who are those two, am curious now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grabner goes to Jersey for a prospect and a 2nd.. have to think the return for Pleks would be similar, if not better.

Share this post


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

OK, who are those two, am curious now.

 

I don't remember the players and it is proving difficult to google but it has happened.

 

There was one big name vet that was traded at the deadline then resigned with original team then traded again at the deadline. Somebody here must remeber who that was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

 

I don't remember the players and it is proving difficult to google but it has happened.

 

There was one big name vet that was traded at the deadline then resigned with original team then traded again at the deadline. Somebody here must remeber who that was!

 If you can barely recall one, lets just agree that it rarely happens and I just think it is highly unlikely Plekanec will do that after he is dealt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman Polak

Antoine Vermette

Daniel Winnik

 

Thats just the last 3 years... do we need to go back further, cause i can

Share this post


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

OK, who are those two, am curious now.

 

The two I'm thinking of are Mark Recchi and Keith Tkachuk.

Share this post


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

 

The two I'm thinking of are Mark Recchi and Keith Tkachuk.

 

If we want to go to that era, add Doug Weight

Share this post


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

 

The two I'm thinking of are Mark Recchi and Keith Tkachuk.

Holy, that is ancient history...good memory.

Share this post


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

 

If we want to go to that era, add Doug Weight

Any this century?:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DON said:

Any this century?:P

 

I gave you three in the last 3 years.

 

You skipped over that post.

Share this post


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

Roman Polak

Antoine Vermette

Daniel Winnik

 

Thats just the last 3 years... do we need to go back further, cause i can

 

So just the one per year? When you consider how many players are traded at the deadline, the percentage isn't very high. 

 

There's a chance we could trade Plekanec and then resigns with the Habs, but statistically speaking it isn't very likely. Personally I don't care either way

Share this post


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

 

I gave you three in the last 3 years.

 

You skipped over that post.

Yes, missed it, I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So the argument for not trading Pleks would have to go as follows:

 

1. If we lose him, we risk weakening ourselves even further at C. This assumes that we will not be able to add a top-6 C who is an upgrade on Danault; or else that if we do land such a C, we'll be better off using him in Drouin's slot and moving Drouin to W. In this case, Danault will still be our #2C, and we'll need a Pleks as our #3.

 

2. We can sign him more cheaply if he does not go to market as a UFA.

 

I'd still prefer that we trade him, because I question premise (1). Add a legit top-6 C. This may take pressure off Drouin (or Galy, or Byron) and improve their effectiveness at C. Also. I don't believe that it's all that hard to find a checking C, even if he's a bit of a downgrade on Pleks. So we don't need Pleks specifically, justna competent checking C.

 

But I guess I was indeed too glib in claiming there is *no* argument to be had about trading Pleks. (Underlying it all is that I don't give a sh*t about next year either; this team is not contending any time soon, so the focus has to be on the medium-term future, not next year per se).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

OK. So the argument for not trading Pleks would have to go as follows:

 

1. If we lose him, we risk weakening ourselves even further at C. This assumes that we will not be able to add a top-6 C who is an upgrade on Danault; or else that if we do land such a C, we'll be better off using him in Drouin's slot and moving Drouin to W. In this case, Danault will still be our #2C, and we'll need a Pleks as our #3.

 

2. We can sign him more cheaply if he does not go to market as a UFA.

 

I'd still prefer that we trade him, because I question premise (1). Add a legit top-6 C. This may take pressure off Drouin (or Galy, or Byron) and improve their effectiveness at C. Also. I don't believe that it's all that hard to find a checking C, even if he's a bit of a downgrade on Pleks. So we don't need Pleks specifically, justna competent checking C.

 

But I guess I was indeed too glib in claiming there is *no* argument to be had about trading Pleks. (Underlying it all is that I don't give a sh*t about next year either; this team is not contending any time soon, so the focus has to be on the medium-term future, not next year per se).

 

 

 

This organization has a history of not trading veteran players and holding on to them way to long. As a result they don't resign them and the play signs else once they hit the open market. Will Plekenec be any different????? Kovalev , koivu , Markov, radulov, gionta just to name some names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut is quite often wrong. However, my gut feeling is Plex doesn't move. As Metallica pointed out, the Habs are good at keeping veteran players when they shouldn't. They usually deal the fringe players, althought they re-signed Deslauriers. I would not be the least bit surprised at another extension. Althought Desharnais was traded last year, so anything is possible. How's that for non-committal. "Plekanec may or may not be traded, and neither scenario would be surprising."

Share this post


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

 

So just the one per year? When you consider how many players are traded at the deadline, the percentage isn't very high. 

 

There's a chance we could trade Plekanec and then resigns with the Habs, but statistically speaking it isn't very likely. Personally I don't care either way

 

sure.

 

But we have to consider, how many teams who trade a guy at the deadline even want him back.  If they aren't even interested in the player returning, then that lowers the stats on the "total number of deals".  In most cases they aren't trying to re-sign him. 

Share this post


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

 

sure.

 

But we have to consider, how many teams who trade a guy at the deadline even want him back.  If they aren't even interested in the player returning, then that lowers the stats on the "total number of deals".  In most cases they aren't trying to re-sign him. 

And that probably would be the case with a Plekanec should they move him. I feel as though the reason to trade him is because we could get some value for a player who the organization no longer feels “has it”, or fills a void. It’s not to get value for a player who still brings something to the table and could possibly return in the summer. 

 

If we trade him, the organization will have said good riddance. I keep hearing things like “Julien really likes him” so if that is the case it becomes a little less obvious that he moves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeBrun on Pacioretty:

 

Quote

As of Thursday night, I don’t sense much going on regarding Max Pacioretty. That can change quickly before Monday’s deadline once guys like Nash and Kane go. The problem with a Pacioretty deal is this: as long as Montreal insists on wanting an NHL-ready player as part of the package, which I think GM Marc Bergevin is, then it’s harder for contending teams to contemplate since they don’t want to take away from their current roster in a Cup run. No question teams have called suggesting picks/prospects packages for Pacioretty but unless something changes, I think Montreal is content to wait until June to make a hockey deal.

 

https://theathletic.com//251394/2018/02/23/lebrun-trade-deadline-notebook-steve-yzerman-looking-to-deal-in-picks-and-prospects-latest-on-karlsson-and-more/

Share this post


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

 

I actually agree with this approach. It's 'retool,' not rebuild - but he has to get a younger player(s) back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it, what decision? 

 

How many 3rd and 4th liners does one team need?

 

Trade him. 

 

Danault is fine for 3rd line center

 

Share this post


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

Wonder if it seizes up with the Brassard trade getting rejected.

 

That trade is gonna go through... its just a matter of getting a lawyer involved to do it. 

 

Sounds like the issue is that they are going to have to re-submit it as 2 (or maybe 3) separate trades, instead of trying to make it 1 trade.  Vegas can't retain salary on Brassard, if Brassard is never on Vegas. 

 

So Ottawa will have to trade him to Vegas.  Then they retain, then they move him to pittsburgh.  Then a third trade to sort out what Ottawa and Vegas should have in assets at the end of the deals.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta give credit to Pittsburgh for getting probably the most average of top six centres but likely getting him on a sweet deal due to Vegas and Ottawa holding cap space so he's an elite third line centre.

Share this post


Link to post
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...