Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trizzak

Max Pacioretty traded to Vegas

Recommended Posts

I am pleasantly surprised at Bergevin's competence getting this deal done, truly, hats off to him, I seriously thought he was going to F this trade up for sure. He not only avoided that, but also actually nailed it, given the circumstance, and obvious drama behind the situation, he was not in the position of power. Still that didn't stop us from now having a high level prospect at the C position added to the mix, a 27 year old player capable of 20 goals per season, and now, already 10 picks in the coming draft. 

 

I have been increasingly critical of his Bergevin's work the past year or 2, but, objectively speaking, I give him full credit for this one. This was as healthy a resolution to what could have easily became an even more embarrassingly tense situation, followed by an embarrassingly bad trade to solve it. I look forward to watching Suzuki in our line up for years to come, wreaking havoc as I have seen him do to the Spits here in Windsor multiple times. There were some nights where he looked like a hockey assassin on the ice, his speed, his hands, the danger he posed on nearly every shift was at times, unmistakable. Like John Wick put down the gun in place of a hockey stick, and used the same lethal, yet artistic approach to cause as much damage as possible in a short amount of time. If his NHL self turns out even 70% as good as the junior version I have personally seen, we have ourselves a stud, who's hockey skills will be right up there near the top within the current organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Meller93 said:

Agreed. The 9 games will give him some good experience, but watch him return and dominate. It’ll be fun to see if he can have a 40 goal 100 point year despite missing time for the world juniors and NHL.

Gallagher played world juniors and still had 41g in 54gms in WHL (along with time off for a concussion I think).

Share this post


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

 

Yeah, I should not have brought Tkachuk into it. Based on the little I know about prospects, I'd have taken Hughes or K-Man before him, and still think that impulse was sound. Good corrective by you there.

 

My wider worry is that we are, or were, making too many decisions based on compensating for the holes at C. Hopefully, what with Special K, Suzuki, and Poehling, this phase is now behind us.

 

The commentary I'm hearing on Vancouver radio, which generally reflects standard opinion around the league on non-Canucks matters, is that Vegas "paid a steep price" for Patches. So the broader media opinion - whatever that's worth - seems to be that this is great value for #67. If we want to criticize the deal itself, it should probably be out of the belief that we could have gotten more at last year's deadline, or even at the 2017 draft, rather than waiting for the MaxPac situation to become a crisis.

 

Ah come on CC, anyone looking for a way to criticize this deal is biased haterade BS. Its perfectly fine to dislike Bergevin and his general managerial approach, but blindly hating everything he does, to the point of dissecting any move LOOKING for a reason to criticize it, is foolish at best.

 

He tried to trade Patches at the draft for what is now being reported as an even better deal than this very good deal, and Pacioretty actually turned down more money from La than he just got from Vegas. What are you supposed to do in a situation like this? You already made the best move you could make, at the right time (Draft), it got nixed by the player asking to be moved, the nix went public, putting you at a disadvantageous position the rest of summer. And with your back against the wall, knowing full well Pacioretty can't come to another major public event like the golf one today and cause another media stir, the training camp looming, you still pull off a trade where you get Suzuki, Tatar, and a 2nd round pick? How much more can we really ask for from upper management in this one? Considering how many times Management has botched things in recent years, this move is like the kid who struggles to read all year in school, suddenly reading an entire paragraph at the end of the school year without so much as a stutter. Tip your hat, appreciate the catastrophe that was avoided, but remain prepared to deal with future management failures, as I am sure they are coming....

 

Just not on this day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I feel like there are more posts of people criticizing other people’s criticism of Bergevin than there are people critizing Bergevin. Jeeeez. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Link67 said:

I am pleasantly surprised at Bergevin's competence getting this deal done, truly, hats off to him, I seriously thought he was going to F this trade up for sure. He not only avoided that, but also actually nailed it, given the circumstance, and obvious drama behind the situation, he was not in the position of power. Still that didn't stop us from now having a high level prospect at the C position added to the mix, a 27 year old player capable of 20 goals per season, and now, already 10 picks in the coming draft. 

 

I have been increasingly critical of his Bergevin's work the past year or 2, but, objectively speaking, I give him full credit for this one. This was as healthy a resolution to what could have easily became an even more embarrassingly tense situation, followed by an embarrassingly bad trade to solve it. I look forward to watching Suzuki in our line up for years to come, wreaking havoc as I have seen him do to the Spits here in Windsor multiple times. There were some nights where he looked like a hockey assassin on the ice, his speed, his hands, the danger he posed on nearly every shift was at times, unmistakable. Like John Wick put down the gun in place of a hockey stick, and used the same lethal, yet artistic approach to cause as much damage as possible in a short amount of time. If his NHL self turns out even 70% as good as the junior version I have personally seen, we have ourselves a stud, who's hockey skills will be right up there near the top within the current organization.

Who created the drama situation to begin with?  Read the articles about the habs trying to “plant” PACs making trade requests.

Share this post


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

Kotkaniemi is an elite prospect.  Top 10 in the World.  he is still no guarantee to be a number 1, cause outside of guys like McDavid, no one is really a guarantee to be that.  but he's the best chance we have.

 

I do not see this at all. Top 10 what? Under 25? 23? 21? 19?

 

Talk on Kotkaniemi is starting to remind me of Andrei Kostitsyn. I don't see what he has proven to be considered elite at this point. Strong second half of the year is turning into more and more hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very afraid of the return when I read the headline given most of Bergevins deals...maybe it was my low expectation but this is a solid deal.  Look how much Vegas traded for Tatar not too long ago...It'd also be really nice to flip him for that now. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, take it easy boys. I didn't say I WANT to hate the trade. I said "if we want to criticize the trade, the right grounds are these." Mostly I had Hab29's critical post in mind. But I do think it's far from clear the Patches file was handled properly.

 

Now in arguing (persuasively) for the wisdom of piling up C prospects, Commandant describes Suzuki as a "#2C who may become a #1." I gotta be honest, all day I've been thinking of Suzuki as a probable #1C rather than a probable #1a, so that post deflates me a bit. I'd prefer we'd have gotten back a guy who projects more clearly to be a #1C (or #1 LD) for Patches; you know: Tomas Plekanec was a fine player in his prime, but how often did we complain that we'd "never with the Cup with him as our #1C?"

 

Now maybe MaxPac never would have brought back that kind of return. But I'm pretty sure that any chance of him bringing back that return had vanished by the time the draft came and went with no deal. It's kind of a miracle MB was able to get a "#2-maybe#1 C" prospect back - considering how little leverage we had on the trade market. Kudos to him for that.

 

In other words: this is an excellent deal under the circumstances. But it's not clear the circumstances had to be this way. And if they'd been managed better, perhaps we could have gotten a better return.

 

And just to be clear, I'm really just trying to think the trade through, not trying to manufacture a club with which to beat MB over the head. He was way overdue for a win, and if this is a win, then thank the good Lord above.

 

Share this post


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

 

I do not see this at all. Top 10 what? Under 25? 23? 21? 19?

 

Talk on Kotkaniemi is starting to remind me of Andrei Kostitsyn. I don't see what he has proven to be considered elite at this point. Strong second half of the year is turning into more and more hot air.

 

 

While Pronman doesn't do a top list... He was listed as an elite prospect in pronman's tiers. 

 

1 prospect- Dahlin was listed as top tier (special)

8 were listed as elite. 

 

So safe to say, he's top 10 on pronman's list. Top 9 even

 

He was 8th on mine

 

 

Pronman's is less than 25 NHL games played. 
Mine is less than 50 NHL games played and under the age of 25. 

 

 

The guy was rated 5th on McKenzie's list of NHL scouts.  Its not crazy to think a top 5 prospect in the most recent draft is a top 10 prospect in all of hockey.

Share this post


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

Sheesh, take it easy boys. I didn't say I WANT to hate the trade. I said "if we want to criticize the trade, the right grounds are these." Mostly I has Hab29's critical post in mind. But I do think it's far from clear the Patches file was handled properly.

 

Now in arguing (persuasively) for the wisdom of piling up C prospects, Commandant describes Suzuki as a "#2C who may become a #1." I gotta be honest, all day I've been thinking of Suzuki as a probable #1C rather than a probable #1a, so that post deflates me a bit. I'd prefer we'd have gotten back a guy who projects more clearly to be a #1C (or #1 LD) for Patches; you know: Tomas Plekanec was a fine player in his prime, but how often did we complain that we'd "never with the Cup with him as our #1C?"

 

Now maybe MaxPac never would have brought back that kind of return. But I'm pretty sure that any chance of him bringing back that return had vanished by the time the draft came and went with no deal. It's kind of a miracle MB was able to get a "#2-maybe#1 C" prospect back - considering how little leverage we had on the trade market. Kudos to him for that.

 

In other words: this is an excellent deal under the circumstances. But it's not clear the circumstances had to be this way. And if they'd been managed better, perhaps we could have gotten a better return.

 

And just to be clear, I'm really just trying to think the trade through, not trying to manufacture a club with which to beat MB over the head. He was way overdue for a win, and if this is a win, then thank the good Lord above.

 

 

 

Teams don't trade #1s... You were never getting Cody Glass, you were never getting Casey Mittelstadt, You were never getting Elias Pettersson.  These are guys I would look at as 1As. They were never the guys we discussed at the deadline either.

 

 

Suzuki is in the same class as the guys we talked about at the deadline.... Robert Thomas was in the 20s... Gabe Vilardi was in the 20s.... Sam Steel is in the 30s....Morgan Frost is in this area.... These are the guys I was looking at back in those trade deadline posts, and its exactly the kind of guy that we got. 

 

I never thought we'd hit the surefire #1 C with pacioretty.  Teams just don't trade those, and if they do, its not for a winger.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

 

Teams don't trade #1s... You were never getting Cody Glass, you were never getting Casey Mittelstadt, You were never getting Elias Pettersson.  These are guys I would look at as 1As. They were never the guys we discussed at the deadline either.

 

 

Suzuki is in the same class as the guys we talked about at the deadline.... Robert Thomas was in the 20s... Gabe Vilardi was in the 20s.... Sam Steel is in the 30s....Morgan Frost is in this area.... These are the guys I was looking at back in those trade deadline posts, and its exactly the kind of guy that we got. 

 

I never thought we'd hit the surefire #1 C with pacioretty.  Teams just don't trade those, and if they do, its not for a winger.

 

Ok, Ok, I'm convinced! :thumbs_up:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not absolutely clear that Suzuki is even one of those sure fire centermen. He plays LW/C/RW.

Share this post


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

Sheesh, take it easy boys. I didn't say I WANT to hate the trade. I said "if we want to criticize the trade, the right grounds are these." Mostly I had Hab29's critical post in mind. But I do think it's far from clear the Patches file was handled properly.

 

Now in arguing (persuasively) for the wisdom of piling up C prospects, Commandant describes Suzuki as a "#2C who may become a #1." I gotta be honest, all day I've been thinking of Suzuki as a probable #1C rather than a probable #1a, so that post deflates me a bit. I'd prefer we'd have gotten back a guy who projects more clearly to be a #1C (or #1 LD) for Patches; you know: Tomas Plekanec was a fine player in his prime, but how often did we complain that we'd "never with the Cup with him as our #1C?"

 

Now maybe MaxPac never would have brought back that kind of return. But I'm pretty sure that any chance of him bringing back that return had vanished by the time the draft came and went with no deal. It's kind of a miracle MB was able to get a "#2-maybe#1 C" prospect back - considering how little leverage we had on the trade market. Kudos to him for that.

 

In other words: this is an excellent deal under the circumstances. But it's not clear the circumstances had to be this way. And if they'd been managed better, perhaps we could have gotten a better return.

 

And just to be clear, I'm really just trying to think the trade through, not trying to manufacture a club with which to beat MB over the head. He was way overdue for a win, and if this is a win, then thank the good Lord above.

 

 

Hey my bad, I don't want you to think i'm gunning for you on this or anything. I'm just saying, in a world where we have watched Management make bone headed moves far too often, this is a breath of fresh air, a rare win. Lets just enjoy it for a few days and contemplate the future possibilities with the assets we now have, can we keep the negative Nancy stuff at bay for at least a few days? There will be lots of time for that when this team hits the ice in October.

Share this post


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

 

While Pronman doesn't do a top list... He was listed as an elite prospect in pronman's tiers. 

 

1 prospect- Dahlin was listed as top tier (special)

8 were listed as elite. 

 

So safe to say, he's top 10 on pronman's list. Top 9 even

 

He was 8th on mine

 

 

Pronman's is less than 25 NHL games played. 
Mine is less than 50 NHL games played and under the age of 25. 

 

 

The guy was rated 5th on McKenzie's list of NHL scouts.  Its not crazy to think a top 5 prospect in the most recent draft is a top 10 prospect in all of hockey.

 

That's great and all. I just watched more clips and game footage of him and I don't see Top 10 prospect. 

 

I'm not going to judge him on a dumb rookie tournament but the more people see him, the less praise he gets. He definitely feels like a second half bloomer who benefited from his position in a draft weak at centre. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see any criticism of the move as purely being negative. The move isn’t an absolute home run when considering that Pacioretty is a truly elite goal scorer in the league. If Tatar puts 30 goals in this year, the move looks like an absolute home run in the short term considering  we also acquired Suzuki. In the long term, the move will largely depend on how Suzuki pans out. It may not be fair, but at that point, Suzuki should be capable of being a 1st line player. If he turns out to be, the trade is fine. It’s far from an obvious homerun in my books though, despite the fact that Pacioretty was an impending free agent. If there weren’t anything to question o be behind this deal, Pacioretty would have been dealt at the deadline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rookie tournament was his 2nd, 3rd and 4th ever games played on North American sized ice... and he's playing with inexperienced wingers.  He still put up 2 points in 3 games.  Yeah, I'd say the judgments at this point are overly harsh. 

 

Let him go back to Finland, dominate, play the world juniors, and re-assess in a year. 

 

The Kid can play. I think he'll grow into that top centre role, but he's not there yet. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Commandant said:

Anyways this is just the start.  Probably see 3 or 4 of the following traded before the deadline.

 

Byron, Tatar, Shaw, Plekanec, Benn, Schlemko


Petry has to be added to this equation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Commandant said:

Anyways this is just the start.  Probably see 3 or 4 of the following traded before the deadline.

 

Byron, Tatar, Shaw, Plekanec, Benn, Schlemko

 

5 hours ago, l<OV4L3V said:


Petry has to be added to this equation? 

 

My trade-for draft-picks list is:

Byron, Tatar, Benn or Schlemko (not both),  Delarose, McCarron and Scherbak.

 

I am undecided on Petry and Shaw, because the return would be underwhelming and in the short-term they fill significant roles (when healthy)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't understand why people are so happy about this trade. If Pacioretty really needed to go he should have been traded at the deadline where Tatar netted three picks.

 

An analogy:

You need to build a house. Imagine you hire a new guy with a lot of experience who apprenticed in great organization. At first, all is well and he does some great work with some discount pieces.

Then, he has a dispute with one of the most talented young workers and gets rid of him to bring in an older guy who has the “right attitude”. The new guy was great at first, but he is always hurt.

Things continue to go wrong and the project does not progress the way that it was envisioned. What looked like an award-winning mansion in the making is now looking decrepit. Feuds with the work crew continue to slow progress--attitude is blamed again-- and your prized possession is losing its luster.

 

Then, the cumulative incompetence, leads to a fire and your house is partly destroyed. Somehow, in the middle of that, your guy manages to move out one of your long term employees for some younger, potentially more skilled workers.

 

Now, a mansion that looked to be just about done and ready to win is in ruins. Most experts estimate that it will take 3-5 years to repair the damage.  

 Do you keep the same guy in charge for what he says is a "reset,"  not a full rebuild?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

 

 

My trade-for draft-picks list is:

Byron, Tatar, Benn or Schlemko (not both),  Delarose, McCarron and Scherbak.

 

I am undecided on Petry and Shaw, because the return would be underwhelming and in the short-term they fill significant roles (when healthy)...

Why Byron?

Schlemko and McCarron will get you nothing.

delarose and Benn might get a late pick, but so what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, PMAC said:

I really can't understand why people are so happy about this trade. If Pacioretty really needed to go he should have been traded at the deadline where Tatar netted three picks.

 

Yup, he netted a third round pick in 2021, a second round pick in 2019 (which will likely be in the 55-62 range since Vegas will still be very good) and a first round pick in 2018, which was a 30th overall pick. He also had term with three more seasons, which is why he was valued by Vegas. He didn't work out in Gallant's high forecheck and backcheck system since he's more of a pure offence guy. If you want an argument there, yeah, we should have traded Pacioretty when he still had three years left on his contract and his value would have been sky high.

 

This trade got a second round pick from Columbus in 2019 (which I've addressed will likely be between 31-38 since the Blue Jackets are about to implode from Bobrovsky and Panarin looking like they are planning to leave), Tomas Tatar (who could have a bounce back season and be worth more picks in the future), and a 13th overall pick in 2017. We were *never* getting a pick that low from a trade deadline move.

 

I had said before I saw no way, no how we were getting Vilardi from LA for Pacioretty and we got a guy drafted just two spots after. Who also has centre potential (but in talking to some OHL fans he sometimes takes faceoffs then plays the wing, the reverse of what Galchenyuk did in Sarnia, so the Habs might see him as a right handed LW more than a centre) but more importantly has top line offensive potential.

 

Could we have got more at the deadline? It's possible. But the reason we got Suzuki is because Pacioretty intended on signing an extension. At the deadline he's just a rental. And we got a much better return than what Rick Nash got as a rental. Or McDonaugh. Or Stastny. Or Shattenkirk. Or Hanzal. Or Staal. Or Ladd. Suzuki, a 2017 13th overall pick, is worth more than any of the first rounders or prospects those teams got.

 

And while Tatar struggled heavy in Vegas after being traded there, he still has five straight 20 goal seasons and a 19 goal season before that. So we downgraded from a consistent 30 goal scorer to a 20 goal scorer while also getting a 19 year old who has put up back to back 40 goal campaigns and had 100 points last OHL season and the Chicago Wolves trusted enough to play in their elimination game.

 

I think Molson (who is calling the shots now and nothing Bergevin does is without his review and say) and Marc Bergevin got probably the best return they could with Max Pacioretty, and deserve credit for that. Had Pacioretty not been traded now, he would have been a pure rental. And at a pure rental, you're not getting a low 2nd round pick, a 27 year old multiple 20 goal scorer with value to trade in the future, and a 19 year old 13th overall pick. It doesn't happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why then did Colorado get such a haul for Duchene when his production and Pacioretty ‘s is virtually identical? And Duchene is ufa after this season?

 

Answer: the Canadiens botched the relationship with the player—again— and had no choice but to get rid of MP ASAP. That is not good planning and it is not good GM’ing

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, PMAC said:

Why then did Colorado get such a haul for Duchene when his production and Pacioretty ‘s is virtually identical? And Duchene is ufa after this season?

 

Answer: the Canadiens botched the relationship with the player—again— and had no choice but to get rid of MP ASAP. That is not good planning and it is not good GM’ing

1

 

A second explanation is that Duchene plays centre, a position in very high demand.  Pacioretty is a winger (left shot at that), those players aren't in as high of demand as a legitimate top-six centre.  If Ottawa was to trade Duchene today, they should fetch a better return than what the Habs got for Pacioretty.

Share this post


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

 

A second explanation is that Duchene plays centre, a position in very high demand.  Pacioretty is a winger (left shot at that), those players aren't in as high of demand as a legitimate top-six centre.  If Ottawa was to trade Duchene today, they should fetch a better return than what the Habs got for Pacioretty.

 

That may be true, but one of the reasons that the return was lower than it could have been were the circumstances that Bergevin created.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×