Jump to content
dlbalr

Permanent Trade Proposal Thread

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Commandant said:

Evgeni Malkin?

Alex Ovechkin?

Sidney Crosby?

Jamie Benn?

 

Pacioretty has never been in their league... its not a fair comparison. Call me when Pacioretty is putting up over a point per game.  Oh wait he's a clear tier below.

 

How about looking at the last few years of Rick Nash, Andrew Ladd, corey perry, erik cole, todd bertuzzi, bobby ryan, milan lucic, marian gaborik, hemsky, matt moulson, kesler, callahan, backes, loui eriksson, spezza, plekanec, etc... 

 

Sure some guys like staal buck the trend.  But you cannot deny a few things.

 

1) there is a risk of him falling off as he ages.

2) far more players fall off as they hit 32, 33, 34 then buck the trend and maintain the same production from their late 20s.

3) the fall off is quicker in forwards than dmen.. and quicker in dmen than goalies.

4) father time is undefeated in these battles.  Sure some take longer than others... but he eventually wins.

 

Pacioretty isnt falling off a cliff tomorrow... but i want no part of a 7 or 8 year contract at big money.

 

It could be an albatross by year 3 or 4.

 

Right now he has big trade value.

 

You have a team in serious need of a re tool.  In serious need of centres and defence and with an abundance of wingers.

 

There will never be a better time to trade him for younger pieces in positions of.need.

 

 

 

Pacioretty has never been a league leader in scoring but those players have been the crop of the league for 13 years now and they still continue to lead the league in scoring along with a few younger players like Connor McDavid.

 

In terms of scoring, I beg to differ that Pacioretty has never been at their level. He was and can be right there with Ovechkin and other elite scorers over time. 

 

That wasn’t the point though. The point was that players can remain productive relative to

their potential longer than people are giving credit. The body doesn’t just say your muscles will remain youthful because you are elite. 

 

Rick Nash’s numbers started dwindling when he went to the Rangers at the age of 27, not when he became 33. Who else’s numbers went down when they were on the Rangers? Eric Staal.

 

The Rangers seem to play a system that doesn’t allow for a high point total amongst their players, similarly to Montreal. 

 

If we’re arguing that Pacioretty won’t put up numbers because he doesn’t have the teammates, I can buy into it. If we’re saying he won’t be able to put up 25-30 goals at least because of age? That shouldn’t happen for years.

 

I’m not sure who would want to sign Pacioretty at 8 million for 8 years but it’s also a number that’s arbitrarily being thrown out there in support of why he should be moved. I would personally sign him for 5-6 years at ~7 million and have no problem with it. See how my number is arbitrary as well? 

 

I repeat that I would accept a trade with Pacioretty involved and also repeat that I wouldn’t sign him to 8x8. But at this point cap space is one of the least of my concerns. We should be trying to find players to add to our team and compliment Pacioretty. Once that isn’t possible? Sure, like Alfredo said, it’s rebuild time at that point. 

 

Markov is 40 and Radulov is 31. Some people felt not signing at least one of them was the biggest mistake last season. If we have Radulov, do we trade Pacioretty? It’s only one person, one year later, and we have cap space to make acquisitions. Yet here we are.

Share this post


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

I honestly dont care about faceoff percentage.

That's the filter I used on the NHL page: >30yrs >30A >51%FO center

 

take a look and you' see there are not that many available after the franchise players

Share this post


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

That's the filter I used on the NHL page: >30yrs >30A >51%FO center

 

take a look and you' see there are not that many available after the franchise players

Try it with a 48% and see what happens maybe. Commandants point was probably that filtering out centermen because of a few % in face offs isn’t a good way to evaluate available talent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’d be filtering out Crosby in 2016-17 for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meller93 said:

You’d be filtering out Crosby in 2016-17 for example.

I was looking for which centres could be had in a trade without emptying the club like Gauthier did

 

I had sorted them by points and started arbitrarily after the "franchise" centres...

 

I just wanted a few plausible candidates to trade for.

 

I also did something similar for upcoming UFA centres...

 

my is that either we keep Patches and fill the two LD holes or we rebuild. Trading the captain will not make this club a cup contender 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Worked for Nashville ;)

The were where the CH was last year. Radu's departure set us back. Price/Weber season starts doomed us.

 

This year we need to look at it as if it was 2016: out of the playoffs, good drafts and 1 year away from expansion but with a 2-3year window

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I was looking for which centres could be had in a trade without emptying the club like Gauthier did

 

I had sorted them by points and started arbitrarily after the "franchise" centres...

 

I just wanted a few plausible candidates to trade for.

 

I also did something similar for upcoming UFA centres...

 

my is that either we keep Patches and fill the two LD holes or we rebuild. Trading the captain will not make this club a cup contender 

 

You're still filtering out good centres who are at 47, 48, 49, 50% FO%

 

That small a difference, its meaningless to filter out a guy who scores. 

Share this post


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

The were where the CH was last year. Radu's departure set us back. Price/Weber season starts doomed us.

 

This year we need to look at it as if it was 2016: out of the playoffs, good drafts and 1 year away from expansion but with a 2-3year window

 

The 15-16 team was better than the current 17-18 team.

Share this post


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

 

The 15-16 team was better than the current 17-18 team.

Obviously. But the approach to the draft and free agency would be similar

Share this post


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

 

You're still filtering out good centres who are at 47, 48, 49, 50% FO%

 

That small a difference, its meaningless to filter out a guy who scores. 

Help me out Commandant: which centers did I miss that could be had by the Habs and turn it into a cup contending team?

Edited by alfredoh2009
Fixed Name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Help mme out Machine: which centers did I miss that could be have by the Habs and turn it into a cup contending team?

 

Personally I think that if you want a one-year turnaround... there is only one way.... Tavares and Dahlin. 

 

Anything short of that means 2-3 years to fix this. 

 

I trade for young centres who can grow with the team... a guy like Thomas, Steel, Borgstrom, etc....  that's what I'm moving Pacioretty for... a young prospect C + something else. 

 

I don't think you need to make this a one year fix.  

 

Move Byron too. 

 

Heck move Petry. 

 

Re-tool it on the fly with the goal of contending in 2020-21. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Personally I think that if you want a one-year turnaround... there is only one way.... Tavares and Dahlin. 

 

Anything short of that means 2-3 years to fix this. 

 

I trade for young centres who can grow with the team... a guy like Thomas, Steel, Borgstrom, etc....  that's what I'm moving Pacioretty for... a young prospect C + something else. 

 

I don't think you need to make this a one year fix.  

 

Move Byron too. 

 

Heck move Petry. 

 

Re-tool it on the fly with the goal of contending in 2020-21. 

I think we agree. I am not ready for à the 2020/2021 goal yet: I was told that trading PK would make us cup contenders :angry:

 

Short of that, I want MB fired now and a full rebuild.

 

But if MB can fix his mess this summer, I'll give him the chance

Share this post


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

Help me out Machine: which centers did I miss that could be had by the Habs and turn it into a cup contending team?

 

I don't know who is realistic for Montreal to go after. Personally I'm a big fan of Logan Couture and he has one year left and has played both wing and centre in his career, good at both. I'd bring him in and pay him on a premium instead of doing that with Pacioretty. My thought is if Tavares leaves NYI and goes to the Sharks, they might prefer a dynamic winger than Couture and we could do a swap there. But that's all unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Bob McKenzie talked about Ryan O'Reilly being a godsend for the Habs if he was truly available and Buffalo wanted a culture change. If that's the case, I see how serious they are about a culture change beginning with Max Pacioretty. ROR is a 1B shutdown guy so Julien won't be freaking out about the loss of Plekanec. After trading Kane, Buffalo is weak on the wing with Eichel's new extension kicking in. O'Reilly is signed long term so it might be a tough pill to swallow but we could likely package Shaw with him to lose at least half the cap. Problem is, if Bergevin is yacking about attitude, I doubt he thinks O'Reilly's is any good. Then again they talked about character and ignored Drouin's coach squabbles so eh who knows?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who think faceoffs are important

 

Winnipeg is crushing Minnesota tonight... all the puck possession... 35-14 in shots... 3-0 on the score board.  It should be a blowout without Dubnyk.  This game is one team running over the other. 

 

Oh, and Minnesota has won 70% of the faceoffs.  (as I type this with 7:00 left).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faceoffs are the most overrated stat in hockey. They only matter when they matter, which is pretty much never 

Share this post


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

For those who think faceoffs are important

 

Winnipeg is crushing Minnesota tonight... all the puck possession... 35-14 in shots... 3-0 on the score board.  It should be a blowout without Dubnyk.  This game is one team running over the other. 

 

Oh, and Minnesota has won 70% of the faceoffs.  (as I type this with 7:00 left).

 

Really the problem is we should have two statistics: Faceoffs won with possession and Faceoffs won without possession. That way you can see which faceoffs actually led to the team possessing the puck and which faceoff wins didn't matter because the team lost the puck seconds later. Of course I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

Because that's how this really comes down. We know now that a lot of centres will win a faceoff but often lose possession (Plekanec) while other centres might lose the puck in the faceoff but they get it back quickly through speed and retrieval (Mackinnon), sometimes it's better to lose the faceoff and race after the puck then it is to win the faceoff but get tied up with the other centre and have to hustle back soon after.

 

This is why speed is becoming everything in hockey again.

Share this post


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

For those who think faceoffs are important

I hope you are not referring to my use of that key to sort out centres on the NHL webpage. I don care much for that stat but out of the choices I had it was better that +/- or PIM ;)

 

Go Jets Go !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then don't use any stat to filter it. 

 

Just take centres who score points, and are below a certain age.  You can go to other sites like corsica and use xG or Corsi or something more meaningful too. 

 

I mean Mark Scheifele's faceoff percentage is terrible, but the guy is a top 10 Centre in the NHL.  Same with Malkin.  (and no I'm not saying either player is available). 

 

Again Kings winning 60.5% of faceoffs here, and being outshot 27-12 to Vegas.

 

Find players who can put up points and control possession. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Really the problem is we should have two statistics: Faceoffs won with possession and Faceoffs won without possession. That way you can see which faceoffs actually led to the team possessing the puck and which faceoff wins didn't matter because the team lost the puck seconds later. Of course I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

Because that's how this really comes down. We know now that a lot of centres will win a faceoff but often lose possession (Plekanec) while other centres might lose the puck in the faceoff but they get it back quickly through speed and retrieval (Mackinnon), sometimes it's better to lose the faceoff and race after the puck then it is to win the faceoff but get tied up with the other centre and have to hustle back soon after.

 

This is why speed is becoming everything in hockey again.

 

Nah..

 

The problem is a faceoff is a glorified 1 on 1 puck battle.... tons of these one on one puck battles happen on every shift, but only like 10-15% of them get recorded in the stat sheet as faceoff wins.  A guy can win possession in many ways... and i go back to Schiefele and Malkin, they get control of the puck in many ways, but just not on faceoffs. 

Team Faceoffs this year... tampa Bay was 30th in the NHL.  

control scoring areas, generate high danger opportunities, score points, win puck battles, win possession, play well in your own zone without the puck and defend down low. Give me a centre who does all of that and is a 40% faceoff guy.  I'll take him all day on my team

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

I guess Bob McKenzie talked about Ryan O'Reilly being a godsend for the Habs if he was truly available and Buffalo wanted a culture change. If that's the case, I see how serious they are about a culture change beginning with Max Pacioretty. ROR is a 1B shutdown guy so Julien won't be freaking out about the loss of Plekanec. After trading Kane, Buffalo is weak on the wing with Eichel's new extension kicking in. O'Reilly is signed long term so it might be a tough pill to swallow but we could likely package Shaw with him to lose at least half the cap. Problem is, if Bergevin is yacking about attitude, I doubt he thinks O'Reilly's is any good. Then again they talked about character and ignored Drouin's coach squabbles so eh who knows?

 

 

 

One of the many problems with elevating 'character' to some all-important variable is that the definition can very easily slip into 'players we happen to like.' I've said before that if Drouin had done here what he did in TB he would have been shipped out ASAP with all kinds of attacks on his 'character.' But because MB fantasized that he could be the C we need, well, suddenly he's a young man of outstanding CHARACTER.

 

The word can also serve as code for 'good boy who doesn't rock the boat,' which has everything to do with managerial ego and zero to do with winning hockey games.

 

There is no more vapid concept in hockey. 

 

Frankly, what smart teams will do when they hear that a team wants to trade a talented player because of his 'character' is get in on the action right away. Seguin, Subban, Hamilton, Kessel, and Hall are all examples of what you can acquire when your colleagues are dumb enough to give up on talent for this reason. Patrick Kane is a further example of what happens when you *keep* the player in question. We should be going after ROR in a big way. And if we are not, that is just one more example of negligence by our General Moron.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

One of the many problems with elevating 'character' to some all-important variable is that the definition can very easily slip into 'players we happen to like.' I've said before that if Drouin had done here what he did in TB he would have been shipped out ASAP with all kinds of attacks on his 'character.' But because MB fantasized that he could be the C we need, well, suddenly he's a young man of outstanding CHARACTER.

 

The word can also serve as code for 'good boy who doesn't rock the boat,' which has everything to do with managerial ego and zero to do with winning hockey games.

 

There is no more vapid concept in hockey. 

 

Frankly, what smart teams will do when they hear that a team wants to trade a talented player because of his 'character' is get in on the action right away. Seguin, Subban, Hamilton, Kessel, and Hall are all examples of what you can acquire when your colleagues are dumb enough to give up on talent for this reason. Patrick Kane is a further example of what happens when you *keep* the player in question. We should be going after ROR in a big way. And if we are not, that is just one more example of negligence by our General Moron.

 

 

Thats if you assume ROR is the solution to our issues.  I'm not sure he's anything more than a two-way second liner who is being paid like a first liner. 

 

I'm not sure if i want to trade prime assets and go after him in a "big way".  If the trade value is cheap, sure... but with his contract and 55-65 point production, i'm not overpaying

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Commandant said:

 

Thats if you assume ROR is the solution to our issues.  I'm not sure he's anything more than a two-way second liner who is being paid like a first liner. 

 

I'm not sure if i want to trade prime assets and go after him in a "big way".  If the trade value is cheap, sure... but with his contract and 55-65 point production, i'm not overpaying

 

 

Well, remember, I'm not fixated on the super-hero #1C. This team needs legit top-6 C and ROR clearly is that. To be honest, though, I'm not sure what I'd send back. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well, remember, I'm not fixated on the super-hero #1C. This team needs legit top-6 C and ROR clearly is that. To be honest, though, I'm not sure what I'd send back. Thoughts?

 

My fear is that Buffalo is looking for something close to what Colorado got for Duchene, and I have no interest in going there. 

 

I agree we need two top 6 Cs. 

 

I just don't know about the plan that sees using your best assets and a ton of cap space to get the #2 guy. 

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

×