dlbalr

I think they are but they're going to go about it by trying to sign free agents or acquire veterans on the cheap as they did with Trouba and Kreider, not by trading away core young talent. Verbeek also seems to have a type, so to speak, basically anyone who hits at a high level seems to be his preferred type of acquisition.

It's one thing to be interested in Mailloux for a player like Zegras, a player whose value is decreasing. It's another to want him as a core part of a deal for a player who they probably still value as a 1C, even with Carlsson likely holding that role for them long-term. Just because McTavish would be their long-term 2C doesn't mean the asking price in a trade will be at a 2C level. Anaheim's prospect pool is quite deep (some might argue deeper than Montreal's, even) so a quantity-for-quality trade is something they have no reason to do. I'm not sure a trade that was widely panned when it was made 20 years ago is the proper comparison when assessing the value of an offer. Beating that is a low bar to clear but doesn't make it fair value.

Given that it's two weeks away, if they had to pull it from that venue, they'd probably be going to a virtual format as the odds of finding a theatre/arena with ample hotel capacity on virtually no notice would probably be asking too much let alone refunding all the LA tickets and selling thousands of new tickets in a matter of days.

So in other words, as long as the Habs get the best player and give up lesser pieces, you're fine with it. What's in it for Anaheim then? Matheson as a rental does little for a rebuilding team and the 16th pick + Mailloux isn't worth a centre not far removed from being a top-three pick. If you're going to acquire a player of McTavish's calibre, the return is going to hurt in a big way. Otherwise, the Ducks have no reason to do it.

Is it really goodbye though? He goes from a team the Habs play three times a year to a team they play twice. That's not really much of a difference.

From Pierre LeBrun: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6420007/2025/06/11/nhl-trades-free-agency-kreider-marchand-tavares/?source=emp_shared_article - Habs not believed to be seriously in on Rossi - Islanders have told Horvat and Barzal they won't be dealt (so cross them off the wish list)

Full who voted for who results are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C-JDy4cwlOEjexViUtzXgwUY8JeQNJEd/view

All of it seems like a steep overpay. In this move, you're sacrificing a ton of future cap flexibility to add an aging centre who is better off as a winger now whose per-game numbers were close to Laine's and a winger that the Habs backed out on last summer once the bidding got to five years. One year later, they probably still don't want that much term. So we're looking at a pair of overpaid players on the decline. In return, you're giving up Laine who isn't anything special but the per-game numbers were close to Stamkos so the net gain might not be as much as it might seem. Dach is a wild card but if he's healthy, he could put up reasonable numbers in a contract year. It wouldn't shock me if he and Newhook combined outproduce Marchessault next year so again, there isn't a big net gain. On top of that, you're throwing in one of Kapanen/Struble in plus a first-round pick plus a first-round pick swap. Let me put it this way, if you really wanted Marchessault, any one of Dach, Newhook, Kapanen, or Struble probably does it, let alone three of them. Nashville would happily get out of a long-term contract that doesn't look like it's going to age well while getting a younger piece and additional cap flexibility. And on the Stamkos side, if the offer was Laine, 16, and 17 for Stamkos and 23, I'm not sure the Habs do that move. As I've said before, if they're parting with quality assets like that, I don't think an overpriced veteran is going to be the target. Stamkos looked old and slow this year and that's probably not turning around at the age of 35. I wouldn't want to be paying him $8M into his age-38 year (the last year of the contract), let alone giving up first-round capital for the ability to do so. No-trade clauses aside, I think Nashville would happily take all elements of this trade and Montreal would get a lot of grief for it for trying to fast-track the rebuild by adding a pair of players that probably won't move the needle all that much in terms of boosting their offence.

A couple of little things from Friedman in here: https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/nhl-rumour-roundup-canadiens-looking-for-forward-to-pair-with-demidov/ - Montreal is interested in finding a forward to pair with Demidov moving forward - He acknowledges the linking of Hague and says he could see that happening

He is a pending UFA, yes, as he has reached seven years of service even though he's not yet 27. Buffalo wound up moving him for a draft pick at the deadline as they were selling but it's a bit of a red flag that his development largely stalled out with them. On the other hand, he's still a pretty young blueliner with considerable NHL experience so I think his market will be relatively strong this summer.

Updated heights/weights from the combine for a bunch of the higher-rated players: https://thehockeywriters.com/2025-nhl-combine-heights-weights/

I think he's the only one saying Montreal is interested. There are plenty saying Hague is in play though, they want to make room for Korczak and wouldn't mind opening up a bit of cap flexibility.

They can negotiate a deal below a QO as long as it's done before the tender deadline. It happens quite routinely, though usually with players coming off entry-level contracts (taking less than the qualifier for more AHL pay), not so much at this stage of a player's career.

What incentive does Primeau have to do that though? What's more appealing from his perspective: 1) I'm going to sign for less than my qualifying offer and have no say in where I get traded to. 2) I get non-tendered, become a free agent, and sign the best deal possible money-wise or in a place I'd prefer to go. I tend to think he'd go with #2 which takes the idea of a sign-and-trade off the table.

That's easier to say now with hindsight but at the time, Primeau had a 2.00 GAA and a .932 SV% in 70 NCAA games with many suggesting that there wasn't much benefit sending him back to school to play a 35-game season against weaker competition, similar to the argument of why the Habs needed to sign Fowler this year as there wasn't much left to prove. A goalie turning pro at 20 is normal if he was drafted out of the CHL so was turning Primeau pro at 20 really rushing him?

It's behind a paywall but Nick Kypreos reports the Habs are a team that is "hot on the trail" to acquire Nic Hague from Vegas. A left-shot D, he's a pending restricted free agent with arbitration rights. https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/there-are-many-layers-to-john-tavares-future-with-the-maple-leafs-this-one-isnt/article_bdd1af37-2bf7-44b2-a9dd-6ef06f66e693.html

If memory serves, he grew up a Canadiens fan so he might but yes, the trade protection is a factor if he wants to stay with the Flames.

Why would a centre that could give you 35 goals not cost much to acquire? That logic doesn't make any sense to me. If he's that good, the price should be quite high as 35-goal centres aren't given away for cheap. Also, Kadri was categorically unavailable at the trade deadline and appears to be not at all available now with Calgary not rebuilding so I don't think he's an option for Montreal.

The bonus carryover penalty was $1,752,500 and it is reflected in the PuckPedia number. I actually have something written about that to run one day on the main site. Base cap space would be somewhere in that range with Price on the books. It'll be a while before Price's bonus is paid as reports have indicated it's a September 1 payment, not July 1 so if he is moved, he's probably not coming off the books soon. Most of those bonuses aren't going to be hit. Demidov at $1M in A is a possibility but it's really hard to get the B. Hutson is capped at $350K since there's a hard cap of $1.1M cumulative bonus payments on his contract. Kapanen and Reinbacher could get some of their A bonuses as well but probably not all. (I do have a section on this in the article to come on the main site.) $2M is a possibility but it won't be anywhere near $5M.

You're correct in that the amount is fairly limited. PuckPedia has it around $6.1 million with Mailloux, Roy, and Beck on the roster so realistically, that could be closer to $8-$9 million or so. With that, they need to re-sign Heineman, Dobes, and Struble. They are allowed to spend past that point using the Price LTIR money, knowing that they'll be staring down another bonus overage penalty for 2026-27 if they do so. The question that Hughes will need to answer if Price isn't moved is are they better off spending that money next season or holding it to have a couple million or so more cap space in 2026-27?

D'Amico is RG Media, that's his main outlet now where his track record has been less than stellar (like every other scoop that site has). To be fair, this isn't his report specifically (someone else wrote it), it's actually something that Larionov directly said in a press conference.

Those requests (about lists in which Matheson has an eight-team no-trade) are done through the agent, not in-person, probably in large part due to the awkwardness of doing that in a live conversation with the player. Most agents know when updated trade lists are due anyway and would speak to their clients in advance for it.

I don't mind Suter but he's probably going to command $4M-plus this summer coming off the only year of his career that he has reached 20 goals and 40 points. A year ago when he was trending toward something in the $3M range, I think he'd have been a good fit. But that's going to be pricey for a 3C when they're already on an above-market deal for 4C in Evans. I think the likelier outcome is that Evans is the 3C to start next season and that he effectively is Dvorak's replacement with a prospect or short-term UFA signing filling the 4C role.

We can close the book on Lindstrom - he signed a five-year deal in Sweden.

O'Reilly takes the Habs from a bubble team to a better bubble team but not a top-three Atlantic group which means a likely first-round exit (barring other moves of course). Then we're looking at an age-36 season to finish the contract where he probably won't be as impactful. If Montreal was a probable top-three team in the division, I'd have a different tune as then you'd be adding him as a possible final piece to vault them toward contender status. At that time, yes, the reward justifies the price tag. But the Habs are what, three or four pieces away at least from being at that point? (The logic of how I get to that is in here.) They're probably two years away from being at that spot so I wouldn't cash in a quality draft pick for someone who won't be around at the time the team should hit their peak.