Jump to content

Permanent Trade Proposal Thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

 

Exactly ... but "make the playoffs and see" has for too long been the Marc Mantra

 

What do you suggest MB does?  What should they give up for Ekholm?  They don't have any cap space. I am happy with any trade that improves the team but their options seem limited right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Middle school humor meant for small minds. Maybe you ought to write fart jokes on your own time instead of burping up your daily dose of baloney on here?   "Duhhhh...faith in Bergevin...duhh

2009-2010 82 games/54 points 2010-2011 79/67 2011-2012 82/81 2012-2013 48/47 2013-2014 59/66 2014-2015 82/86 2015-2016 78/70 2016-2017 77/66   I said:

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

What do you suggest MB does?  What should they give up for Ekholm?  They don't have any cap space. I am happy with any trade that improves the team but their options seem limited right now. 

Yes, am curious what is "obviously" the other route(s) to take?

Is that- Tank for several years on purpose and hope you draft an elite all-star calibre forward or two?

Or- Go all in, sell out for short term fix and get a elite all-star calibre forward or two?

Or- ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

What do you suggest MB does?  What should they give up for Ekholm?  They don't have any cap space. I am happy with any trade that improves the team but their options seem limited right now. 

I would initially offer Chiarot, Mete, Lehkonen, (Mysak or Farrell) and 2021 1st for Ekholm, Granlund and Haula (with 50% of MG's and EH's salary/cap-hit retained) ... upgrade prospect to Ylönen if necessary ... Nashville not likely to care that Chiarot is out for most of the rest of season if they are trading Ekholm ... lose Lehknoen for the quarantine period but once Toffoli, KK and Armia are healthy AL wouldn't be playing anyway ...

 

IDEALLY, If I thought Nashville would bite, I would substitute Byron for Chiarot and sweeten the picks/prospects because of the next two years on his deal ... Ekholm is an upgrade on Chiarot but if Ben could be retained then Romanov gets veteran partner come playoffs and the Habs have three what should be dependable pairings.

 

The rumoured reduction to one week quarantine with testing out the ying-yang would make it more palatable to move put two roster forwards 

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

Yes, am curious what is "obviously" the other route(s) to take?

Is that- Tank for several years on purpose and hope you draft an elite all-star calibre forward or two?

Or- Go all in, sell out for short term fix and get a elite all-star calibre forward or two?

Or- ???

Don't think "tank for several years on purpose" is on the table at the moment ... MB is facing the need for a very good playoff run to get an extension (hopefully they would not bring him back in the final season of their contracts; other GMs would smell the desperation from miles away ... nor do I ever support "tank for several years on purpose" ... if in rebuild (or deep re-load) I might "tank"  a  season if there was a generational player available.

 

Between now and the deadline I would prioritize a LHD for Weber, or failing that a RHD to allow the "3rd pairing" to take on a good chunk of Weber's minutes ... next would be a legit 4C face-off guy and/or a 3rd line scoring winger to push Armia out of the top 9.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I would initially offer Chiarot, Mete, Lehkonen, (Mysak or Farrell) and 2021 1st for Ekholm, Granlund and Haula (with 50% of MG's and EH's salary/cap-hit retained) ... upgrade prospect to Ylönen if necessary ... Nashville not likely to care that Chiarot is out for most of the rest of season if they are trading Ekholm ... lose Lehknoen for the quarantine period but once Toffoli, KK and Armia are healthy AL wouldn't be playing anyway ...

 

IDEALLY, If I thought Nashville would bite, I would substitute Byron for Chiarot and sweeten the picks/prospects because of the next two years on his deal ... Ekholm is an upgrade on Chiarot but if Ben could be retained then Romanov gets veteran partner come playoffs and the Habs have three what should be dependable pairings.

 

The rumoured reduction to one week quarantine with testing out the ying-yang would make it more palatable to move put two roster forwards 

Do the salaries match? Cap hit?

 

And what is in it for Nashville?

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

Do the salaries match? Cap hit?

 

And what is in it for Nashville?

Chiarot (3.5), Mete (.735) and Lehkonen (2.4) totals $6.635
Ekholm (3.75), Granlund (50% = 1.875) and Haula (50% = 0.875) totals $6.5 ... Preds have the cap room to take on the difference

 

Nashville gets the first, the prospect(s) [which is where the negotiations would centre], Chiarot who they can possibly move at the deadline for other assets (or keep for next season), Lehkonen who is a controlled RFA and legit bottom 6 forward, OR more trade deadline bait ... if they are trading Ekholm they are at a minimum re-loading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Chiarot (3.5), Mete (.735) and Lehkonen (2.4) totals $6.635
Ekholm (3.75), Granlund (50% = 1.875) and Haula (50% = 0.875) totals $6.5 ... Preds have the cap room to take on the difference

 

Nashville gets the first, the prospect(s) [which is where the negotiations would centre], Chiarot who they can possibly move at the deadline for other assets (or keep for next season), Lehkonen who is a controlled RFA and legit bottom 6 forward, OR more trade deadline bait ... if they are trading Ekholm they are at a minimum re-loading.

 

I think that's a reasonable proposal, Ekholm won't be cheap nor should he be.  He is a quality defenceman. I am not crazy about giving up a #1 pick but would do it in this case. The key like you said is what prospect they would want. Caulfield is definitely a deal breaker. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

...  I am not crazy about giving up a #1 pick but would do it in this case ...

From what I've read/heard, the next two drafts are ordinary to weak ...  so if you are going to trade a first then now's the least risky time to so so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Chiarot (3.5), Mete (.735) and Lehkonen (2.4) totals $6.635
Ekholm (3.75), Granlund (50% = 1.875) and Haula (50% = 0.875) totals $6.5 ... Preds have the cap room to take on the difference

 

Nashville gets the first, the prospect(s) [which is where the negotiations would centre], Chiarot who they can possibly move at the deadline for other assets (or keep for next season), Lehkonen who is a controlled RFA and legit bottom 6 forward, OR more trade deadline bait ... if they are trading Ekholm they are at a minimum re-loading.

Why would Nashville give up the better players, for basically a 1st AND retain salary. I could see them going for something like this if Caufield is the prospect (which for us should be an absolute non-starter), or a combo of prospects that includes, Poehling, Harris, Brook and probably at least another 2nd.

they aren’t getting much for Charuit - tops would be a 3rd or 4th round pick. 
 

frankly, I think they get a better offer for Ekholm on his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Why would Nashville give up the better players, for basically a 1st AND retain salary. I could see them going for something like this if Caufield is the prospect (which for us should be an absolute non-starter), or a combo of prospects that includes, Poehling, Harris, Brook and probably at least another 2nd.

they aren’t getting much for Charuit - tops would be a 3rd or 4th round pick. 
 

frankly, I think they get a better offer for Ekholm on his own.

As I said, prospects [... is where the negotiations would centre] ... but picks would the other area to offer

 

The salary retention is all this season, which they seemingly have given up on if they deal Ekholm, so no long-term impact.

 

But picks/prospects could well need to be bumped ... for me, Caufield and Guhle are the only two that are off the table ... I have no issue including Poehling, a second and to improve the odds give Preds the choice of two of Harris/Norlinder/Struble/Brook.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

As I said, prospects [... is where the negotiations would centre] ... but picks would the other area to offer

 

The salary retention is all this season, which they seemingly have given up on if they deal Ekholm, so no long-term impact.

 

But picks/prospects could well need to be bumped ... for me, Caufield and Guhle are the only two that are off the table ... I have no issue including Poehling, a second and to improve the odds give Preds the choice of two of Harris/Norlinder/Struble/Brook.

From teh Rumor thread:

34 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

They want the same price that the Kings got for Muzzin.  It's the same situation, only with a slightly better player on a cheaper contract.  Their asking price (1st, good prospect, and another interesting piece) seems more than justifiable.

 

Lehkonen, Mete and a 1st is not sufficient. Mysak or Farrell are not high prospects.

 

A good prospect may be one of: Romanov, Caufield, Norlinder

An interesting piece may be Armia more than Lehkonen. Ylonen more than Poehling

 

I amnot even sure they would accept 1st, Norlinder and Armia

 

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

From teh Rumor thread:

 

Lehkonen, Mete and a 1st is not sufficient. Mysak or Farrell are not high prospects.

 

A good prospect may be one of: Romanov, Caufield, Norlinder

An interesting piece may be Armia more than Lehkonen. Ylonen more than Poehling

 

I amnot even sure they would accept 1st, Norlinder and Armia

 

 

The interesting piece I was suggesting would be another prospect based on the Muzzin deal.  The Muzzin trade saw Carl Grundstrom (near NHL-ready bottom-six forward at the time with some perceived upside) and Sean Durzi (a recent 2nd round pick) as the prospects involved.

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

 

The interesting piece I was suggesting would be another prospect based on the Muzzin deal.  The Muzzin trade saw Carl Grundstrom (near NHL-ready bottom-six forward at the time with some perceived upside) and Sean Durzi (a recent 2nd round pick) as the prospects involved.

So, 1st, Evans/Mete and someone comparable to Durzi .. Struble? Tuch? Mysak? Ylonen? Romanov? All are recent second-round picks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

So, 1st, Evans/Mete and someone comparable to Durzi .. Struble? Tuch? Mysak? Ylonen? Romanov? All are recent second-round picks.

 

Throwing in Romanov is way too much.  Just because he was a previous 2nd round pick means nothing now, he has moved up.  Throwing in a guy who could easily be a top 4 defenceman for the next 10 years plus is not a good deal for the Habs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Throwing in Romanov is way too much.  Just because he was a previous 2nd round pick means nothing now, he has moved up.  Throwing in a guy who could easily be a top 4 defenceman for the next 10 years plus is not a good deal for the Habs.


thatbis the point 

 

why do we expect the Predators to trade their top 4 LD for anything less than the equivalent ?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:


thatbis the point 

 

why do we expect the Predators to trade their top 4 LD for anything less than the equivalent ?!

 

The point is that Romanov is not a throw in, he would be a main component in a trade at this point. Plus you don't have to protect him in the expansion draft, you would have to protect Ekholm. A 1st plus  Mete/Evans plus Romanov is way too much to give up. MB does not make that deal period!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

The point is that Romanov is not a throw in, he would be a main component in a trade at this point. Plus you don't have to protect him in the expansion draft, you would have to protect Ekholm. A 1st plus  Mete/Evans plus Romanov is way too much to give up. MB does not make that deal period!

 

This year's draft is a crapshoot and the Habs will probably have at best a 16th pick, probably a low 20s pick. Not great.

 

The main piece of the trade value for Nashville is the top prospect. For a top-4 LD, they should be asking for any Habs prospect with top-4 D potential: Romanov, Norlinder, (Brook if he continues to develop this way), Ghule

 

To make it similar to the Muzin deal, the other piece could be Armia (to even out the cap hit) which is a solid 3rd liner (to me a much better player than Eller was, and he was valuabel in a cup contending team). But that is probably not sufficient; so we will probably need to add one of Poehling or Ylonen or similar mid-6 forward or a good D prospect...

 

Otherwise, why would Nashville bother?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But giving up 1st, Lehkonen, Norlinder and Ylonen would be a lot, even if our draft pick is a late one.

 

Armia would be somewhat different because he is effective a rental now -- and because of that, I don't think he would have much value in a this kind of a deal, even if he is a middle-six forward.

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

 

This year's draft is a crapshoot and the Habs will probably have at best a 16th pick, probably a low 20s pick. Not great.

 

The main piece of the trade value for Nashville is the top prospect. For a top-4 LD, they should be asking for any Habs prospect with top-4 D potential: Romanov, Norlinder, (Brook if he continues to develop this way), Ghule

 

To make it similar to the Muzin deal, the other piece could be Armia (to even out the cap hit) which is a solid 3rd liner (to me a much better player than Eller was, and he was valuabel in a cup contending team). But that is probably not sufficient; so we will probably need to add one of Poehling or Ylonen or similar mid-6 forward or a good D prospect...

 

Otherwise, why would Nashville bother?

 

 

Draft's are always a crap shoot. You make it sound like their #1 pick has no value, not true.  I am just saying that Romanov is a little more than just potential. The Habs have some aging defenceman, no way they give up Romanov as part of this deal. Ekholm is a solid defenceman but not a star. If Nashville insists on Romanov as part of the deal then it doesn't happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

But giving up 1st, Lehkonen, Norlinder and Ylonen would be a lot, even if our draft pick is a late one.

 

Armia would be somewhat different because he is effective a rental now -- and because of that, I don't think he would have much value in a this kind of a deal, even if he is a middle-six forward.


It is a lot but I would do it. 
 

We are truly very close to contention and this boost to our D corps along with Danault line playing like team point leaders might put us over the edge. 
 

We won’t be in this good of a position for a while. Price and Weber don’t have too much left in their tanks and the new core isn’t ready yet. 
 

Giving up those assets sucks but it would not hurt us long term. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Draft's are always a crap shoot. You make it sound like their #1 pick has no value, not true.  I am just saying that Romanov is a little more than just potential. The Habs have some aging defenceman, no way they give up Romanov as part of this deal. Ekholm is a solid defenceman but not a star. If Nashville insists on Romanov as part of the deal then it doesn't happen. 


No way I add Romanov or Caufield to any deal (well for McDavid). 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


No way I add Romanov or Caufield to any deal (well for McDavid). 
 

 

 

I wouldn’t go that far - neither is a sure-fire star, and only Romanov is even a guaranteed NHLer at this point - but I sure wouldn’t trade either for Ekholm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

We won’t be in this good of a position for a while. Price and Weber don’t have too much left in their tanks and the new core isn’t ready yet. 

 

Giving up those assets sucks but it would not hurt us long term. 

Giving up two strong prospects always hurts. Yes, we have other prospects, l but those are not guaranteed.

 

Ekholm is 30, that would create another window. Would we be able to make another run within five years? And would Ekholm make us into an actual cup contender this year?

 

Edit: No, there would be no real window. Ekholm is a UFA in 2022, so we would be getting him only for this year's playoffs and the full year next year. After that, we would be in the same position as we are today, less Lehkonen, Norlinder and Ylonen. That's not an improvement post-2022.

 

And ... would Nashville take this deal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

Giving up two strong prospects always hurts. Yes, we have other prospects, l but those are not guaranteed.

 

Ekholm is 30, that would create another window. Would we be able to make another run within five years? And would Ekholm make us into an actual cup contender this year?

 

Edit: No, there would be no real window. Ekholm is a UFA in 2022, so we would be getting him only for this year's playoffs and the full year next year. After that, we would be in the same position as we are today, less Lehkonen, Norlinder and Ylonen. That's not an improvement post-2022.

 

And ... would Nashville take this deal?


All good points

 

I think we have 2 years with our current core then we start building through our new core. 
 

We won’t be contenders in 2 years with the new core but I think we have an opportunity right now., we just need the right piece to push us over 

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...