Habs Fan in Edmonton
-
Posts
5241 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
69
Posts posted by Habs Fan in Edmonton
-
-
3 minutes ago, GHT120 said:
Don't disagree that they should ... but when a GM is looking at a years' paid vacation then unemployment their vision tends to get VERY short-term
That is true!
-
2 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:
Elite prospect
I read it there; and based on those numbers, I want to believe it
We all want to believe it. LOL
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, GHT120 said:
Per Waite's comments that MB allegedly told him that Marc felt he had to do something or he would be next, I think that MB is thinking about this year's playoffs, not beyond ... if they don't go deep, MB could well be gone
And if a team is constantly looking at what their lineup will look like in three years they would be handcuffing themselves in the present
I am not saying that you focus totally on the future but I would be concerned if a GM wasn't somewhat forward looking especially in today's salary cap world. Today's move getting Staal was a great move for the present without sacrificing much of the future,
-
One thing the Habs are not lacking is veteran leadership. Love the deal.
-
4 minutes ago, Commandant said:
3rd + 5th is the equivalent of a 2nd.
Perhaps but the Habs had 3 x 3rd round picks 3 x 5th round picks in this draft so it's an efficient use of resources.
-
I can most definitely live with this. I thought it would cost them at least a 2nd. Good job MB.
-
2 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:
Indeed. However, we have to face the fact that our current C configuration is not acceptable for a team with pretensions to contending. A veteran C in the bottom-6 who can take draws is a must.
Agreed. He would help. It would take a little pressure off the kids.
-
27 minutes ago, Commandant said:
Spunds like we are in on Eric Staal
I just saw that. Hopefully the price isn't too steep for a 36 year old having a bad year that is about to become a UFA.
-
34 minutes ago, tomh009 said:
The Athletic had nine team exec proposals for deadline trades -- that they claimed made good sense. One of them was Eklund to Winnipeg, for Perreault, Heinola and a 1st.
That would match up fairly well with Armia, Brook and a 1st, I think.
I think that's a pretty close comparable. Not a cheap price for Winnipeg, basically 2 1st round picks and a very useful 2 way forward. I assume you meant Ekholm and not Eklund.
-
11 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:
I still think a solid 3rd pair LD that can play top-4 minutes for short stints like Oleksiak is a better option, or even Jokiharju in Buffalo (I know he plays RD, but could be a good pair with Romanov, solidifying the D core for years to come)
The demand for Ekholm is going to be too high
I agree it is a better option if you have to give up too much for Ekholm. The Habs have to think about what their defence will look like in 3 years as Weber is likely done, Petry will be getting toward the end and Chiarot is probably not here. They have a pretty good core of prospects (Brooks, Guhle, Norlinder, Struble, Harris and I guess you could still call Romanov a prospect), not all of them will turn out but they will need at least a couple to come through so trading one or two of these guys could really come back to bite them. It takes young defenceman time to develop.
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:
thatbis the pointwhy 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!
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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 differenceNashville 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.
-
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.
-
4 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:
Bergevin speaking to the media tomorrow at 11 - obviously to announce a trade.
Real guess is a Covid/Schedule update
I wonder if Calgary losing 2 in a row to Ottawa has lessened MB's urgency to make a trade. Those are 2 huge losses for Calgary. They were the only team I was worried about below the Habs that I thought had a chance to catch them. Looks like the Daryl Sutter effect has worn out quickly.
-
1 hour ago, Commandant said:
I keep saying it... Josh Brook is going to be a legitimate NHL defenceman for sure, and he has a very good chance to be a top 4 guy. There is just something about that Kid that I really, really like on defence
Totally agree on that, he seemed to have such a well rounded game in junior. I thought he was almost a can't miss prospect but I think it took a while to get some confidence playing at a higher level. He seems like such a great kid. I am really happy he is doing well.
-
18 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:
Go get him Bergy
Of course I would expect MB to maintain a poker face. You don't get the best deal by acting like you are desperate.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, GHT120 said:
I completely agree ... but long ago stopped (or desperately try to avoid) re-beating a very dead horse
It just won't happen anyway. Who is going to pay his 9M salary next year? Not us and I don't see New Jersey paying a chunk. They have a lot of free agents to sign this summer.
-
2 minutes ago, GHT120 said:
I believe that a team acquiring him might have the opportunity to try and convince him to not return to Northeastern next fall (technically do not the habs also) on the off chance that he might sign with another team ... and, if Harris still went back that "brief window of opportunity" would also be Harris' only chance to burn a year off his ELC, so a strong-ish incentive
NOT saying Harris will be traded, just looking at the options
True, you need to look at the options. I would think Harris wants to burn a year off his ELC. That could only be with the Habs or a team that owns his rights so definitely an incentive to sign with a team that owns his rights as you stated. Getting rid of that 1 year can mean a lot of money if he progresses well.
-
1 hour ago, Commandant said:
Sabres gave up a third rounder for Jimmy Vesey and then couldn't get him signed.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/rangers-trade-forward-jimmy-vesey-sabres-pick/
Rangers gave up a 2nd round pick for Adam Fox.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/hurricanes-trade-defence-prospect-adam-fox-rangers/
both were much closer to UFA.Good point. I think Jordan Harris has progressed to the point where I don't think the Habs would accept anything less than a 2nd rounder. I think the Rangers were pretty confident that Fox would sign with them. I hope the Habs can sign Harris next year.
-
15 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:
well booHopefully we have no positive cases
On a positive note we get to spend more quality time with our spouses!! Although my wife may not see that as a positive.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Neech said:
Wouldn't this tank his trade value?
That's what I thought. Any team trading for him has a brief window of opportunity to sign him after the next college season so why would you give up much for a guy who could be a free agent.
-
1 hour ago, tomh009 said:
He’s getting a business degree on a full scholarship, and that will help him find a second career after hockey — a smart choice given that it’s impossible to know how long his NHL career will be.
The Habs say Jordan remains committed to coming to Montreal, let’s hope that’s true.
Let's hope that is the case, he seems like a bright young guy who takes his education seriously.
Permanent Trade Proposal Thread
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
I agree that Ekholm addresses a need, no doubt. They will have to give up some of their future to get him. It's just a question of how much of their future is acceptable to give up as you want a legitimate shot at it every year like Detroit did for a number of years.