Leaderboard

A tidbit from Friedman's 30 Thoughts: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-trade-talk-beginning-to-heat-up/

He may be a good add to a bigger trade.

It's actually an interesting question. Would you rather be the San Jose Sharks, a team that's knocking on the door for a decade without making the Finals, or some team that does as you describe? E.g., Calgary after 1989? The answer is not obvious to me. You're talking about nine years of wretchedness and one Cup, versus 10 years of great hockey and thrilling playoff competition. Indeed, the scenario you sketch is roughly what happened to the Habs after 1993. I don't remember anyone suffering through the Houle era going, 'well, we won in 1993, so that makes all these putrid teams OK.' Frankly, I don't believe most fans who say that they want to go 'all in' and damn the torpedoes. I think this is just code for saying 'I REALLY WANT MY TEAM TO WIN THE CUP' and nothing more than that. Indeed, I'm pretty sure of two things: 1. If the team mortgages the future and does all the 'right' managerial moves, but still falls short of the Cup - which is more likely to happen than actually winning the Cup (c.f. Pittsburgh, which has often been hailed as 'winning' Trade Deadline Day and has exactly zilch to show for it) - within a year or two fans will be howling for blood and the management will be fired. Nobody will then remember that management did what they wanted them to do and go 'All In.' 2. Even if the team does win a Cup, the afterglow will have worn off within 2-3 years, after which time unremitting anger and bitterness will be all that these fans feel. Hell, just look at Boston, firing Chiarelli after one disastrous injury-riddled season. The real key for me is that 'going all in' is no guarantee of winning anyway. No, what you need to do is build an excellent team that has a legitimate chance every year. Be prepared to trade some future assets to make the necessary tweaks as you move along. But voiding the cupboard in some frenzied attempt to win RIGHT NOW isn't something I'd do. Anyway, this team has a number of years to go before the core declines. No need to panic.

Because 10 player deals happen all the time. Especially for a young 1st overall and 4th overall pick and sending out over 10 million more in salary than what's coming back. I swear some people are delusional when it comes to trades. Just because they like a certain player doesn't mean they are getting traded, and if they don't, it doesn't mean our GM isn't trying. There isn't a magic wand that can be waved Edit: just noticed it's my 1000th post

If Kessel cost $5M, teams would be offering their best prospect and two first rounders. Very few players in the NHL put up his points at $5M. You're spoiled from Pacioretty's contract.

I think most Habs fans have had visions of Galchenyuk ripping it up. In fact you could argue that he is fact doing well. He is the leading scorer thus far of his draft class and made the NHL at 18 despite missing pretty much his whole last year of junior. His teammates all know, we know and he knows how good he can be. As long as he stays dedicated and focused, he will be a star with the Habs for years. I don't think he needs to be a top 5 or 10 in the league to be a valuable player The Habs are a young team that needs to take the next step. They could definitely benefit from having a player like Plekanec.

There were 24 centers last year that scored more than Plekanec. Which one can the Habs acquire by trading Plekanec that will provide more scoring without a significant loss in defence? Don't forget he was tied for 13th among all centers in goal scoring, so you probably want a center who can outscore him. Are you saying we're trading Plekanec+ for Jiri Hudler? Joe Pavelski? Jeff Carter? Maybe you want to trade him for David Backes, who is bigger but doesn't score as much and doesn't get as much points and Plek has as many points as Backes does in the past two playoffs as Backes has for his entire playoff career? I'd love to hear a good argument for trading Tomas Plekanec and not one that involves us putting a 26 year old third line center who has yet to score more than 30 points in five seasons and has one good postseason in three on the top six.

So, Eller being Eller, the upgrade would have to be, more points from Galchenyuk, and an assumption he is going to play center, and the upgrade is expected to be "player acquired" over Plekanec? Don't think you are a math guru... the return by trading Pleks, has to be greater production and player than Pleks, so how does that happen, and how does that pertain to Pleks bringing the best return as the main reason to trade him? How do you upgrade Pleks without actually adding pieces to get an upgrade over him? Or are you in the same bus as 30/31 saying Pleks is a no show in playoffs, so any 50-60 point center is an upgrade? Plekanec is definitely one of the best 2 way, and #2 centers in the NHL, period. Trade him and you are likely to weaken the top 6... Habs need a winger than can score, especially when the chips are down, that's the improvement to the top six that would make the greatest improvement, and leave Pleks where he is... Defense won the Blackhawks the cup, and Bergevin has addressed that with the Petry and Beaulieu signings, and we have good depth at D, so I think we are already a better club, than most of last year, to answer the thread's original question, a winger that is capable of scoring 20, and helping the PP. Trade DD and whatever else works to get that winger, and voila, we are better.