Permanent Trade Proposal Thread

[Habsfan]

10 hours ago, tomh009 said:

 

Yeah. Our centres would consist of Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, Domi, Evans and Poehling. Potentially not bad (although that might mean Evans on the checking line and Domi still back on the fourth) but none of them have serious experience as a top-line centreman.

Not to mention that none of them are particularly good on face-offs! Whereas Daneault is pretty good!

[tomh009]

Face-off skills can be developed. But, yes, right now we would be lacking in that department.

[DON]

8 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

No way do I move Suzuki for Huberdeau even straight up. 

Neither would I, but that is what it might take to get arguably best player off Jets or Fla.

Or swap in Gallagher instead of Suzuki, however you slice it, it wouldnt be painless.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

It’s just a rumour from the last page of this thread but I’d definitely be happy with keeping Domi over Danault, if it was a decision between them.

 

Although he has stark defenders on here, I’ll come out and say that he’s no longer that underrated great pickup. 
 

His stats are decent but have simply been inflated by playing along the likes of Pacioretty, Radulov, Gallagher, and Tatar. Without playing with elite first line players, he is supposed to cap out at 40-45 points. The same can be said for a lot of players, but there are 1st line centers in the NHL who could produce 60-70 points, even if they were to be placed on a third line. 
 

My biggest thing when it comes to potentially trading Danault is that I believe having him on the team gives the coach an excuse to use him as a first line center, when he is not one. If he is, he is about the 25th to 31st best 1st line center in the league. It is a similar feeling as to why I wanted to be rid of Desharnais for a few years.

 

The other reason is that despite myself having my own opinion about him, unless the other GMs are all thinking in similar fashion to me, I believe that Danault’s perceived value is higher than what he actually brings to the table. (I can be spared the lecture of what he does bring, because I do know there are many things he does bring) If that’s the case, and he can be a main cog going the other way when it comes to some of the names that have been brought up as potentially coming back our way, I’m all for it. 
 

When it comes to Domi, he simply has more offensive potential. He played poorly in these playoffs, but I wouldn’t judge a man, a diabetic on top of everything, by the manner in which he played during a small sample tournament, 3 months after the beginning of a global pandemic. As for the Danault defenders, 1 goal in 16 career playoff games does not exactly instil confidence in me, when he is supposed to be a top 3 forward. 

[tomh009]

What Danault brings, and Domi very much doesn't, is the defensive aspect. Danault is at least a borderline Selke candidate, whereas Domi is fairly weak defensively, and is very unlikely to appear in a PK situation. The Danault-Lehkonen pairing was very impressive in shutting down the opposition.

 

Is Domi's offensive potential worth more than Danault's all-around play? That's the key question, isn't it?

[xXx..CK..xXx]

I’m well aware of Danault’s defensive play but in my own opinion, his defensive play isn’t as strong as Plekanec’s, which is a random thing to bring up, but it means that I feel as though Danault’s defensive prowess is hardly irreplaceable.

 

Danault has also stated that he’s ready for an offensive role and while it is a positively thing mentally for him to feel that way, my point is being enlightened; we will have an offensively minded, defensively capable 1st line center taking up minutes from someone else with more skill. (I am actually one who prefers veterans but in this case we can go and probably should go with Suzuki)
 

If Danault remains on the third line and we slowly begin to forget that he was ever a first line center for our team, he’s welcome to stay. If he continues to get thrown into the role of 1st line center every time someone else experiences a slump or gets injured, then I’d be interested in seeing what type of return we could get for him. 

[GHT120]

24 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

... If Danault remains on the third line and we slowly begin to forget that he was ever a first line center for our team, he’s welcome to stay. If he continues to get thrown into the role of 1st line center every time someone else experiences a slump or gets injured, then I’d be interested in seeing what type of return we could get for him. 

 

ONE more season of Danault as 1C (full or part-time) might help KK and Suzuki's development by sheltering them from the worst of matchups ... and that may well be what happens and why it happens ... the issue with Phil is his contract after 20/21 ... his market value (real or perceived) may well exceed what the habs should pay their 3C, especially with KK and Suzuki needing new deals in the next two off-seasons ... *** IF *** 20/21 proves to be a non-playoff season (for whatever reason) Danault could be a very valuable piece at the deadline.

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

It’s just a rumour from the last page of this thread but I’d definitely be happy with keeping Domi over Danault, if it was a decision between them.

 

Although he has stark defenders on here, I’ll come out and say that he’s no longer that underrated great pickup. 
 

His stats are decent but have simply been inflated by playing along the likes of Pacioretty, Radulov, Gallagher, and Tatar. Without playing with elite first line players, he is supposed to cap out at 40-45 points. The same can be said for a lot of players, but there are 1st line centers in the NHL who could produce 60-70 points, even if they were to be placed on a third line. 
 

My biggest thing when it comes to potentially trading Danault is that I believe having him on the team gives the coach an excuse to use him as a first line center, when he is not one. If he is, he is about the 25th to 31st best 1st line center in the league. It is a similar feeling as to why I wanted to be rid of Desharnais for a few years.

 

The other reason is that despite myself having my own opinion about him, unless the other GMs are all thinking in similar fashion to me, I believe that Danault’s perceived value is higher than what he actually brings to the table. (I can be spared the lecture of what he does bring, because I do know there are many things he does bring) If that’s the case, and he can be a main cog going the other way when it comes to some of the names that have been brought up as potentially coming back our way, I’m all for it. 
 

When it comes to Domi, he simply has more offensive potential. He played poorly in these playoffs, but I wouldn’t judge a man, a diabetic on top of everything, by the manner in which he played during a small sample tournament, 3 months after the beginning of a global pandemic. As for the Danault defenders, 1 goal in 16 career playoff games does not exactly instil confidence in me, when he is supposed to be a top 3 forward. 

Is keep Domi over Danault on two condition if the return for Danault is higher.

the first is Domi’s willingness to play the big and willingness to committing to the position. Second, how much money and term is he looking for? Is he looking for a 1 year deal to walk him to UFA?  Is it a reasonable term and cap hit for both sides?

 

the starting point though, is what is the return for Danault and how much more are we getting for him.

If he is a key piece for Laine and without trading Romanov, Norlinder Or Harris. You move Danault.  That is a pipe dream though as I think you need a number 1 dman for Laine.

[tomh009]

How is the Stars' actual cap situation? Capfriendly shows $15M in cap space but they have $3M in bonus penalties (and almost $2M more should they win the Cup). Khudobin will surely cost at least $3.5M, dropping their space to about $10M (assuming they defer half the bonus penalty) and with six RFAs/UFAs to be signed.

 

Hintz might cost $4M and would ease their problem significantly, could we pry him from Dallas? He's 23yo LW, he has good speed, strong hockey IQ, some good size and is up to 0.55 ppg in his second NHL season. Gurianov might be another option but I think Hintz has more long-term potential.

[alfredoh2009]

10 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Is keep Domi over Danault on two condition if the return for Danault is higher.

the first is Domi’s willingness to play the big and willingness to committing to the position. Second, how much money and term is he looking for? Is he looking for a 1 year deal to walk him to UFA?  Is it a reasonable term and cap hit for both sides?

 

the starting point though, is what is the return for Danault and how much more are we getting for him.

If he is a key piece for Laine and without trading Romanov, Norlinder Or Harris. You move Danault.  That is a pipe dream though as I think you need a number 1 dman for Laine.

Danault would not fetch the return we got for Patches, but closer to what we got for Shaw.

At the level of return, I would

prefer to keep him. He is the main difference between being in rebuild mode instead of reset mode. He makes the Habs better, he makes Tatar better and when he is not in the lineup Tatar reverts to his VGK self

 

Domi , like Drouin, does not have the same impact on the team.

[GHT120]

51 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

How is the Stars' actual cap situation? Capfriendly shows $15M in cap space but they have $3M in bonus penalties (and almost $2M more should they win the Cup). Khudobin will surely cost at least $3.5M, dropping their space to about $10M (assuming they defer half the bonus penalty) and with six RFAs/UFAs to be signed.

 

Hintz might cost $4M and would ease their problem significantly, could we pry him from Dallas? He's 23yo LW, he has good speed, strong hockey IQ, some good size and is up to 0.55 ppg in his second NHL season. Gurianov might be another option but I think Hintz has more long-term potential.

 

If MB also took back a good chunk of AAV ... say Andrew Cogliano (he is now a 12/13 forward) and Stephen Johns (6/7 RHD) it might be possible, subject to AC's M-NTC ... AC has 1yr@$3.25M and Johns 1yr@$2.35M ... otherwise I am not certain Stars want to move their youngest top 9 forward, who was their 2nd leading goal scorer this past season (tied with Benn but in 9 fewer games) ... Dallas could also save $2.1 if they buy out Cogliano (+ $1.08 hit in 21/22) and/or almost $1.4 with Johns (+ $683K in 21/22).

 

Gurianov perhaps less likely to be dealt ... he is tied with Radulov and Pavelski for playoffs goals and was the Stars leading goal scorer in the regular season

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Danault is a complete centre - he is good at faceoffs, he is good in his own zone and he is good in the offensive zone, he is a good passer and he reads the play well.

 

Domi is very strong with the puck in the offensive zone but awful everywhere else and he doesn't seem interested in even trying to play defense.

 

In today's NHL you will not have success as a player if you can only play in one zone of the ice. Danault is a better player by far

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I'd consider moving Danault - no one is untouchable, and his comments about not wanting to be just a checker strike me as a bit ominous, if we see Suzy and KK as imminent top-6 C. But his departure would represent a really significant step back at C for this team. I could only see him being dealt as one piece in a high-impact deal bringing back major player(s). More likely by far, he stays put.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

I see no reason why we can't have 4 offensive lines that are defensively responsible.

 

We simply need another good winger and we should be able to roll 4 lines with speed that can all score.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

26 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I see no reason why we can't have 4 offensive lines that are defensively responsible.

 

We simply need another good winger and we should be able to roll 4 lines with speed that can all score.

 

True. But as it stands right now, our W are pretty weak - and a C looking at being on the third line is probably contemplating linemates like Lehknonen, Weal, etc.. Ugh. So no matter how much the coach says, "hey, feel free to play offence," if you're playing with plumbers, you're gonna get sewage.

[alfredoh2009]

46 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I'd consider moving Danault - no one is untouchable, and his comments about not wanting to be just a checker strike me as a bit ominous, if we see Suzy and KK as imminent top-6 C. But his departure would represent a really significant step back at C for this team. I could only see him being dealt as one piece in a high-impact deal bringing back major player(s). More likely by far, he stays put.

It i surprising to me that you would want to hitch the Habs to two unproven but promising rookies. Or am I confusing you with another poster ?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

20 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

It i surprising to me that you would want to hitch the Habs to two unproven but promising rookies. Or am I confusing you with another poster ?

 

At least read my post before making smartass remarks

[alfredoh2009]

5 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

At least read my post before making smartass remarks

No, I’m serious . I am surprised you would say that « if se wee LK and NS as top 6 C »

 

sorry cucumber, didn’t think I was a smartass . 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

9 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

No, I’m serious . I am surprised you would say that « if se wee LK and NS as top 6 C »

 

sorry cucumber, didn’t think I was a smartass . 

 

"I'd consider moving Danault - no one is untouchable, and his comments about not wanting to be just a checker strike me as a bit ominous, if we see Suzy and KK as imminent top-6 C. But his departure would represent a really significant step back at C for this team. I could only see him being dealt as one piece in a high-impact deal bringing back major player(s). More likely by far, he stays put."

 

The implausibility of going from that to the conclusion that I "want to hitch the Habs to two unproven but promising rookies" is what led me to conclude it was a smart remark. But no harm done, it's all good

 

 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I see no reason why we can't have 4 offensive lines that are defensively responsible.

 

We simply need another good winger and we should be able to roll 4 lines with speed that can all score.

We need a lot more another good winger.  We’ve really got 4 wingers that produce (Gallagher, Tatar, Drouin and Byron). Lekhonan, while good defensively, is a crap shoot offensively. From the 4, only Gallagher is really a top line player.

yiu can’t have 4 scoring lines with the wingers we have. On top of that, Tatar has not looked on the playoffs in Montreal, or Vegas.

[hab29RETIRED]

8 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

"I'd consider moving Danault - no one is untouchable, and his comments about not wanting to be just a checker strike me as a bit ominous, if we see Suzy and KK as imminent top-6 C. But his departure would represent a really significant step back at C for this team. I could only see him being dealt as one piece in a high-impact deal bringing back major player(s). More likely by far, he stays put."

 

The implausibility of going from that to the conclusion that I "want to hitch the Habs to two unproven but promising rookies" is what led me to conclude it was a smart remark. But no harm done, it's all good

 

 

 

You may to try use a it more bold, in case the nuance of the comments still aren’t clear enough😁

[alfredoh2009]

23 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

"I'd consider moving Danault - no one is untouchable, and his comments about not wanting to be just a checker strike me as a bit ominous, if we see Suzy and KK as imminent top-6 C. But his departure would represent a really significant step back at C for this team. I could only see him being dealt as one piece in a high-impact deal bringing back major player(s). More likely by far, he stays put."

 

The implausibility of going from that to the conclusion that I "want to hitch the Habs to two unproven but promising rookies" is what led me to conclude it was a smart remark. But no harm done, it's all good

 

 

 

 

<Smartass mode>

 "I'd consider moving Danault - no one is untouchable, and his comments about not wanting to be just a checker strike me as a bit ominous, if we see Suzy and KK as imminent top-6 C. But his departure would represent a really significant step back at C for this team. I could only see him being dealt as one piece in a high-impact deal bringing back major player(s). More likely by far, he stays put."

<Smartass mode>

 

I guess I put the emphasis on the wrong words when I read it the first time

 

I am glad we sorted that out!

 

 

[tomh009]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

True. But as it stands right now, our W are pretty weak - and a C looking at being on the third line is probably contemplating linemates like Lehknonen, Weal, etc.. Ugh. So no matter how much the coach says, "hey, feel free to play offence," if you're playing with plumbers, you're gonna get sewage.

 

I don't think Lehkonen really belongs in the same bucket with Weal. True, he doesn't score a lot, but I do believe that his other attributes bring him up above the sewage level.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

32 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

 

I don't think Lehkonen really belongs in the same bucket with Weal. True, he doesn't score a lot, but I do believe that his other attributes bring him up above the sewage level.

 

No, no, of course, Lehkonen is a fine player. A prototypical 3rd line, checking FW. I meant that he is sewage offensively, which is correct. And if Danault is looking at wingers like that, he is probably going "holy cow...I'll be lucky to get 35 points next season"

[IN THE HEARTS OF MEN]

The funny thing is neither are rookies anymore!!