Jump to content
dlbalr

Permanent Trade Proposal Thread

Recommended Posts

dlbalr    654
4 hours ago, habs rule said:

Jim Nill is willing to move the #3 pick Cause he has 2 1st's. I would think we should take a shot at that.

 

If the Habs were looking to enter into a rebuilding stage, then they'd take a shot at that.  Dallas wants an established player to move that pick.  Are you willing to move Galchenyuk for that pick?  That would likely be the starting point for discussions; they're not going to take Shaw and a 2nd rounder or a package highlighted by Beaulieu or some other quantity for quality proposal that will surely be thrown out there.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/dallas-stars-could-trade-no-3-pick-at-nhl-draft/c-289500140

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606
2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Yeah, but it'll be too 'tough.' :rolleyes:

 

More seriously, it all depends on the return. What does Nill want?

 

I'm not crazy about the #3 pick in a two-player draft. 

 

If it comes cheap, sure. 

 

But I think if we are trading serious assets it should be for immediate Centre help given this team's window. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dalhabs    78

Eklund is Eklund 

he says rangers and habs talking chucky...

would chucky for zibanejad make any sence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    164
5 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Eklund is Eklund 

he says rangers and habs talking chucky...

would chucky for zibanejad make any sence?

No!  How did the last trade with the rangers work out where we traded a young player.  Hint - he is currently the rangers best player, while the other guy is out of the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
8 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

No!  How did the last trade with the rangers work out where we traded a young player.  Hint - he is currently the rangers best player, while the other guy is out of the league.

 

Because the Habs made a bad trade in the past to the Rangers involving a young player, that means that all future trades involving a young player to the Rangers will also be bad

 

- 29 Logic

 

 

A more reasonable response would be something like: I think that Galchenyuk has a higher ceiling and is arguably already the better player right now, so that deal would not make sense for the Habs to make. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    164
37 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Because the Habs made a bad trade in the past to the Rangers involving a young player, that means that all future trades involving a young player to the Rangers will also be bad

 

- 29 Logic

 

 

A more reasonable response would be something like: I think that Galchenyuk has a higher ceiling and is arguably already the better player right now, so that deal would not make sense for the Habs to make. 

 

 

The fact that I think Galchenyuk has a MUCH higher ceiling should be obvious.  Galchenyuk should be untouchable unless he is part of a package for someone like McKinnon or barkov.  

 

But im sure someone like you would be happy to trade him for 10 cents in the dollar, just as you were happy that they traded Subban for a guy in decline- all because you felt he slighted you at an event. Boo hoo hoo ill will.

Whatever.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Eklund is Eklund 

he says rangers and habs talking chucky...

would chucky for zibanejad make any sence?

At least my Chuck for Giroux made a little sense. This is baaaad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dlbalr    654
6 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Eklund is Eklund 

he says rangers and habs talking chucky...

would chucky for zibanejad make any sence?

 

I suspect Derek Stepan would be the target.  He's a proven 1B/2A centre, has four years left at a cap hit that's going to be comparable to Galchenyuk's new deal, and is more defensively reliable.  It doesn't exactly solve the offensive problems but that would give them someone that they'd be more comfortable using in that top centre position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stogey24    233

Oh God. No way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

But im sure someone like you would be happy to trade him for 10 cents in the dollar, just as you were happy that they traded Subban for a guy in decline- all because you felt he slighted you at an event. Boo hoo hoo ill will.

Whatever.

 

Boo hoo is the theme of 99% of the posts that you make, always complaining about something. So I find it funny that you use that to describe someone who is generally positive. I tend to pick on the things you say because they are quite often very outlandish and illogical. It's like you just spew out a bunch of words without thinking about it whatsoever. Somewhere in the rants are little pieces of things that make some sense and can be considered as factual, but it's hard to sift through it all to get to that. Case in point: " I would be happy to trade a player for 10 cents on the dollar". Really? Is that what you really think or is it all for dramatic effect? Because as a reader it's hard to take you seriously. " I was happy that they traded Subban for a player in decline because I felt slighted at an event" Really? I've only posted hundreds of times about that damn trade, and if that's what it is you get from everything I've wrote, then your reading comprehension needs work. To summarize: I was pissed off Subban got traded, then I grew to learn more about Shea Weber. And then I got excited about how he would fit in, and I still am happy with how the trade effected the team this season. I referenced an event I attended specifically to see Subban where he was a dick head because at the time the thread was talking about his personality. 

 

what-if-i-591f01.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can anyone be happy with how the Weber trade 'affected the team' last season? The team did marginally worse than the 2015 version and has exactly the same weaknesses.

 

As for Galy for Stepan or Zibanejad, that is exactly the kind of blinkered move I would expect. Better to take the safe, mid-range guy than the riskier guy with a high ceiling. Perfect move for a team that's just happy to make the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hab29RETIRED    164
36 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Boo hoo is the theme of 99% of the posts that you make, always complaining about something. So I find it funny that you use that to describe someone who is generally positive. I tend to pick on the things you say because they are quite often very outlandish and illogical. It's like you just spew out a bunch of words without thinking about it whatsoever. Somewhere in the rants are little pieces of things that make some sense and can be considered as factual, but it's hard to sift through it all to get to that. Case in point: " I would be happy to trade a player for 10 cents on the dollar". Really? Is that what you really think or is it all for dramatic effect? Because as a reader it's hard to take you seriously. " I was happy that they traded Subban for a player in decline because I felt slighted at an event" Really? I've only posted hundreds of times about that damn trade, and if that's what it is you get from everything I've wrote, then your reading comprehension needs work. To summarize: I was pissed off Subban got traded, then I grew to learn more about Shea Weber. And then I got excited about how he would fit in, and I still am happy with how the trade effected the team this season. I referenced an event I attended specifically to see Subban where he was a dick head because at the time the thread was talking about his personality. 

 

what-if-i-591f01.jpg

Of course you are always positive.  It's clear you are satisfied with losing.  It's more important for you to get your Pom Poms out for management, lose, lose, or lose.

 

and yes the suggested trades for galchenyuk are for 10 cents on the dollar.  The Weber trade was 50 cents on the dollar, when you factor in his age, contract and the way he has faded in the later half of the year for the past two seasons. There is a reason why Nashville traded their captain and the guy who was supposed to be the heart of the franchise - even though weber has a lower cap and in is getting paid less, given that he had a front loaded deal (which is important for a small market team).  no, in this instance there was not a win-win.

 

if the trade was Subban and Gallaghar for Weber and forsberg, you could argue it was win-win - we get weaker on defence, but stronger offensively.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134

The trade was definitely a win-win. Subban's game changed when he went to Nashville but it doesn't mean it would have changed on the Habs. On the Habs, you have to decide if you want Subban or Weber to be your quarterback. On Nashville, neither of them have to be. I was fine with Therrien and actually liked him better than Julien if you want to know the truth but I think it is an argument to be made that Laviolette has coached Subban well and even in a manner he wouldn't have been coached by either MT or CJ in Montreal. He's playing him in a different role. With that being said, they have the luxury to do that. While on the Habs, Subban was in a shutdown role at times in that he faced the opposition's top line but he also had to focus equally on the offensive side of things and he often tried to do too much.

 

Everyone seems to watch Subban and see what he could have been but it's 100% fact that the trade would have knocked some sense into him, for lack of a better way of putting it. Once again his game has evolved, and it would have anyway, but there's no reason to believe that being traded wouldn't have some type of impact on the player, whether positive or negative. It seems like an obvious conclusion. 

 

Going end to end a la Bobby Orr was something he could do in Junior, and very well I might add, but people expected him to do that on the Habs as well and it wasn't a strength of his in the NHL. More often than not, Subban doesn't like to carry the puck much further than the neutral zone. Trying to do too much did lead to an enormous amount of turnovers. 

 

I liked Subban. So did illWill. What I didn't miss was his individual play that left 3 other players out of rhythm. For better or worse, the team played more together this season. It was an obvious site. So yes, if you enjoy seeing less individualistic play and like to see cohesive play from a team, the trade was a win. It's hard to pin such a change on one trade, but I thought it was fairly evident. Subban had his positives as well, there's no arguing that. But to those who think the trade itself had mostly a negative impact, you're writing your own script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The team did NOT play 'more together' than the 2015 crew that at least made the second round.

 

The argument that the trade was anything more than a pointless lateral move relies on amnesia.

 

Now, onto the more interesting Eklund rumour, let's ask: what would make that a good trade? Galy for Stepan/Zapatista PLUS WHAT? Because a one-to-one trade is obviously a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rags drafting might be worse than ours. Though to be fair they rarely have a first round pick.

 

The fairer trade is Galchenyuk for Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illWill    395
1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

How can anyone be happy with how the Weber trade 'affected the team' last season? The team did marginally worse than the 2015 version and has exactly the same weaknesses.

 

Because Weber played great and was in the Norris conversation for most of the year? 

 

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

The Weber trade was 50 cents on the dollar, when you factor in his age, contract and the way he has faded in the later half of the year for the past two seasons. There is a reason why Nashville traded their captain and the guy who was supposed to be the heart of the franchise - even though weber has a lower cap and in is getting paid less, given that he had a front loaded deal (which is important for a small market team).  no, in this instance there was not a win-win.

 

 

50 cents on the dollar? Well that's quite the fleece job. Subban is twice the player that Weber is apparently. There are 4 years between them, not 14. And the reason Nashville made the trade was because they wanted a puck moving defenseman because that's they style they are going for. It was a great trade for them. It doesn't mean it was a bad trade for us. Take a second to breathe and think before you type

 

59 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

The argument that the trade was anything more than a pointless lateral move relies on amnesia.

 

 

I agree that it was a lateral move player wise. Both are great defensemen but they were traded for each other because they have different styles that each team coveted. Since Nashville hired Laviolette, they are going for a more up tempo styled game, whereas Montreal wants to be playing a more conservative style. Both players fit into their organizations better than their previous ones. I don't get why that's so hard to understand. We will all miss the Subby Doos, low fives and hospital donation, but don't let that cloud your judgement about what each player does on the ice and what they mean to their team. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

Because Weber played great and was in the Norris conversation for most of the year? 

 

 

50 cents on the dollar? Well that's quite the fleece job. Subban is twice the player that Weber is apparently. There are 4 years between them, not 14. And the reason Nashville made the trade was because they wanted a puck moving defenseman because that's they style they are going for. It was a great trade for them. It doesn't mean it was a bad trade for us. Take a second to breathe and think before you type

 

 

I agree that it was a lateral move player wise. Both are great defensemen but they were traded for each other because they have different styles that each team coveted. Since Nashville hired Laviolette, they are going for a more up tempo styled game, whereas Montreal wants to be playing a more conservative style. Both players fit into their organizations better than their previous ones. I don't get why that's so hard to understand. We will all miss the Subby Doos, low fives and hospital donation, but don't let that cloud your judgement about what each player does on the ice and what they mean to their team. 

 

 

The trade did not make the team any better. Therefore, the whole argument that Weber 'fit better into the style of play' is nugatory. If we acquired a guy to 'fit into the system' then the rationale had to be that it would improve the team. Yet we were no better in our own end, did not score more goals, did not win more games, did not do any better in the playoffs, and the team character was described by the GM as 'fragile.' The results, rationally examined, show that the trade was a futile lateral move to please a coach who should have been fired and soon was.

 

Anyhow,. this is the 'trade proposal' thread. The question returns: Galy for what return from the Rags? I'm honestly curious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606

Galchenyuk for Stepan would be a lot like Subban for Weber.   Getting a player who is older, not as high a ceiling, but is better in his own end and has character. 

He also scores less than Chuck does. 

 

Not a fan of that proposed move. 

Share this post


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

Galchenyuk for Stepan would be a lot like Subban for Weber.   Getting a player who is older, not as high a ceiling, but is better in his own end and has character. 

He also scores less than Chuck does. 

 

Not a fan of that proposed move. 

 

The analogy is imperfect because Weber scores more goals than Subban (even if most of his goals for us seem to have been in the first couple of months of the season). Otherwise put, Stepan seems like a steeper drop in offensive ceiling relative to Galy, than Weber is relative to Subban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stogey24    233

The two bums that got rid of Subban, will be gone by this time next year and we'll be left with a player that's 33 years old and past his prime.

 

Lateral move, that's a joke. Traded a #1 of today's nhl, for a #1 of 10 years ago.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606
4 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

The analogy is imperfect because Weber scores more goals than Subban (even if most of his goals for us seem to have been in the first couple of months of the season). Otherwise put, Stepan seems like a steeper drop in offensive ceiling relative to Galy, than Weber is relative to Subban.

 

By scores, i meant points.  With Subban generally scoring at a greater rate than Weber throughout his career.  Yes he gets less goals, but his ability to create assists in the transition game makes up for the extra PP goals that Weber gets. 

 

The other issue is Subban does far more 5v5 than Weber.  Weber is better on the PP.  Well look at the playoffs, penalty calls are always lower in the playoffs.  So give me the guy who can generate 5v5 all day. 

 

That said, we're getting off topic here.  The point is Galchenyuk for Stepan, and yes I see that as a big drop off in terms of scoring, especially if Chuck continues to improve in Pts/Game which he's done every year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dlbalr    654
14 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Galchenyuk for Stepan would be a lot like Subban for Weber.   Getting a player who is older, not as high a ceiling, but is better in his own end and has character.

 

And that's why Stepan's name came to mind.  It doesn't exactly meet the criteria that most of the fan base would like to see but falls in line with Bergevin's methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commandant    606
6 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

And that's why Stepan's name came to mind.  It doesn't exactly meet the criteria that most of the fan base would like to see but falls in line with Bergevin's methodology.

 

I know.

 

It fits Bergevin's MO.

 

 

 

desperation1.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXx..CK..xXx    134

I liked Subban and was just as frustrated when the trade was made as I was ecstatic when we acquired Vanek years ago. With that being said it's comments like those that have me debating. Subban isn't even playing as a #1 on his team right now whereas Weber is and yet Subban is a #1 in the league now and Weber is a #1 of 10 years ago.

 

I get it, the puck moving defenseman is the way of the modern NHL whereas the Byfuglien's and Weber's are becoming obsolete. I also get that Nashville has 3 #1 defensemen and the Habs have 0 according to this train of thought but I have to ask how in the world is having the second most goals in the league amongst defenseman not a #1 in today's NHL when Burns will get the Norris for scoring the most?Not to mention Byfuglien was top

5 in scoring as well. Nashville isn't compete on their back end either. They would love to have a Weber, Byfuglien or Burns as well. There's no mistaking that.

 

As for Galchenyuk, I wouldn't trade him to the Rags at all. I didn't think highly of them

when we faced them in terms of their offensive capacity. I do like Zibenajad and Nash played well but I would not trade Galchenyuk for either, even in a package. Stepan as well, he's had some good stints but even if MB is trying to get bigger and stronger, Stepan is too slow for my liking. 

 

I would honestly be surprised if we traded him. Really surprised. But I would have been one of the few that may have traded him

for Duchene. I'm if trading him, it's out west and I personally don't care about either Galchenyuk's nor Duchene's apparent defensive liabilities. It's been brought up that Duchene had defensive issues in Colorado and was played on the third line but everything I read mentioned that Duchene playing wing was initially as a result of Duchene being a versatile player who could play wing as well and that having him and Mackinnon (two centermem) on the same line was an extremely effective weapon. They each would take faceoffs depending on the situation. By the end of the season, he was playing third line wing but many teams do that to spread the scoring out and Andrighetto was also playing on the first line. In sum, if we had actually traded for Duchene, we don't have a Mackinnon and I'm sure it would have been in order to slot him

in at center.

Share this post


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

 

I know.

 

It fits Bergevin's MO.

 

 

 

desperation1.jpg

 

Ha ha, yes - a dumb-ass MO.

  • Downvote 1

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


×