Permanent Rumour Thread

[Lanes World]

Dach for Dylan Cozens

 

sorry, wrong thread

 

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by Lanes World

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

17 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I could see Barron as part of another trade or perhaps a team that is very weak with puck moving offensively minded Dmen would take a low cost risk on Barron. 
 

A low second rounder would be amazing but I’m expecting a third. 
 

Maybe there is a back up goalie trade possible? Barron for Back Up Bill and then waive Primeau?

 

Even a third seems optimistic to me. He is not currently an NHL defenceman IMHO, so the team acquiring him might well need to bury him in the A. I don’t know whether he would need to clear waivers (?) for them just as much as for us? Presumably so - so you’ve traded a 3rd for nothing.

 

14 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I would be surprised if Barron is a Canadien next season. 
 

Just my unscientific gut feeling 

 

The best scenario for Barron may be that he becomes a late bloomer. Often bigger D take longer to mature. But the combination of waiver rules, and his need to play a lot of hockey in order to improve, weigh heavily against the likelihood of his ‘late blooming’ with us. 🤷‍♂️

 

11 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Chris wideman is a good comparison.  There may be a team that needs that offence and would take him.  But on a roster with Mailloux, Hutson and Matheson it isnt us.

 

Will Mattheson be with us next season? And is Mailloux substantially more guaranteed than Barron to ‘hit?’ What you say makes sense right now, but it seems to me that it might not necessarily make sense next December (say) - ?

 

For my part, then, I don’t believe in Barron but I’m not sure what to do with him. Maybe we can trade him to another team with an analogous prospect, a kid who is too old to send down but isn’t working out. 

 

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Wideman had a decent career, not a star player career but he did ok. 
 

If Barron is comparable to Wideman then Barron should have a career too

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

2 hours ago, DON said:

Sorry, what value are you talking about, a mid round pick?

He can barely make a weak roster giving up a ton of goals as it is.

I could be wrong; but, kinda doubt Hughes and St Louis are considering his trade value when dressing or scratching him.

 

I don't think St. Louis is considering his trade value when deciding whether to dress him or not. He was a 1st round pick, good skater, good puck skills, weak defensively but other teams might see more value than we do. If you look only at the offensive side of his game, he is a legitimate NHL player. Other teams might think he can improve on the defensive side of his game, we just haven't seen that yet. 

[alfredoh2009]

5 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I could see Barron as part of another trade or perhaps a team that is very weak with puck moving offensively minded Dmen would take a low cost risk on Barron. 
 

A low second rounder would be amazing but I’m expecting a third. 
 

Maybe there is a back up goalie trade possible? Barron for Back Up Bill and then waive Primeau?

 

a year or two ago had gone through all teams' depth on RD to see who had  extra RDs, that is around the time the Jets waived Kovacevic. I wanted to see whom the Hags could get an RD on the cheap.

 

I don;t feel like doing this now, but going through all teams to see who lack depth on RD would yield a list of potential trade partners for Barron. I am sure that a third of the teams could use him for the right return.

[Commandant]

9 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Even a third seems optimistic to me. He is not currently an NHL defenceman IMHO, so the team acquiring him might well need to bury him in the A. I don’t know whether he would need to clear waivers (?) for them just as much as for us? Presumably so - so you’ve traded a 3rd for nothing.

 

 

The best scenario for Barron may be that he becomes a late bloomer. Often bigger D take longer to mature. But the combination of waiver rules, and his need to play a lot of hockey in order to improve, weigh heavily against the likelihood of his ‘late blooming’ with us. 🤷‍♂️

 

 

Will Mattheson be with us next season? And is Mailloux substantially more guaranteed than Barron to ‘hit?’ What you say makes sense right now, but it seems to me that it might not necessarily make sense next December (say) - ?

 

For my part, then, I don’t believe in Barron but I’m not sure what to do with him. Maybe we can trade him to another team with an analogous prospect, a kid who is too old to send down but isn’t working out. 

 

 

Just being younger, I would bet on Mailloux developing better than Barron. There are no guarantees with Mailloux but Barron isnt developping

[Lanes World]

Ya, he’s really not. 

[DON]

Barron has been bit better in last couple games, hasnt he been?

[Commandant]

23 minutes ago, DON said:

Barron has been bit better in last couple games, hasnt he been?

 

Its a low bar.

[alfredoh2009]

35 minutes ago, DON said:

Barron has been bit better in last couple games, hasnt he been?

 

better, but not reassuring enough

[DON]

Managed to be a +1 in that 9-2 beat down and hasnt had any major gaffs lately i can recall.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I dunno how I feel about this, but I’m fairly sure Van would be interested in Mattheson.

 

Tocchet doesn’t like Nils Hoglander. Could he be a key component of a deal? 🤔

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

42 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I dunno how I feel about this, but I’m fairly sure Van would be interested in Mattheson.

 

Tocchet doesn’t like Nils Hoglander. Could he be a key component of a deal? 🤔

They talk about that very trade here. 

 

Canucks Should Target a Couple Defencemen for Nils Hoglander - The Hockey Writers - Vancouver Canucks - NHL News, Analysis & More

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

22 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

They talk about that very trade here. 

 

Canucks Should Target a Couple Defencemen for Nils Hoglander - The Hockey Writers - Vancouver Canucks - NHL News, Analysis & More

 

Thanks for this.

 

Willander AND a first (!!!) would be a sublime return for Matheson. Indeed, I’m 99% sure Alvin won’t move Willander. So it’d be Hoglander + a first, or some related combination, if a deal is made with Van.

[Commandant]

4 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Willander AND a first (!!!) would be a sublime return for Matheson. Indeed, I’m 99% sure Alvin won’t move Willander. So it’d be Hoglander + a first, or some related combination, if a deal is made with Van.

 

With a year and a half left on what is a bargain basement deal for Matheson, I want a guy like Willander included.   That contract is insane value. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

4 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

With a year and a half left on what is a bargain basement deal for Matheson, I want a guy like Willander included.   That contract is insane value. 

 

Fair enough - I hadn’t considered that angle, thanks

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

2 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

With a year and a half left on what is a bargain basement deal for Matheson, I want a guy like Willander included.   That contract is insane value. 

 

Does the acquisition of a veteran like Carrier increase the chance they might trade Matheson?  They now have 3 veteran D's on the team. Maybe that's the right mix. 

[Commandant]

To me, with that contract, and the fact he is at minimum a #2 defenceman on the team, i want a Pacioretty-like return to move Matheson. 

[Commandant]

1 minute ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Does the acquisition of a veteran like Carrier increase the chance they might trade Matheson?  They now have 3 veteran D's on the team. Maybe that's the right mix. 

 

Its certainly possible.  I think this team is going to evaluate where they are 6 weeks from now when Feb starts.   Are they in the mix?  Where is Mailloux for second PP duty if Matheson goes? 

 

Do we do it at the draft instead?

[Butterface]

4 hours ago, Commandant said:

To me, with that contract, and the fact he is at minimum a #2 defenceman on the team, i want a Pacioretty-like return to move Matheson. 

Like Willander and a second ? … more ?

 

After Willander, we don’t need another roster player unless we are switching a roster player out.. or they are in college like Willander or on an ELC.

 

Until we say goodbye to Anderson and Gally, we are full up. So Willander and picks ? 
 

We’d have to mix up Laval if we took an ELC. 
 

I would love to get Willander out of it… then we can do as we like in the first round 2025 (we don’t need to worry about drafting a RHD with Calgarys pick). We could trade our 3 first round picks and a second round pick to get as low as possible in the draft. (Ours, vancouvers and calgarys.. plus our second..)

 

We don’t want more bodies. We want quality.

 

 

[Butterface]

4 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Its certainly possible.  I think this team is going to evaluate where they are 6 weeks from now when Feb starts.   Are they in the mix?  Where is Mailloux for second PP duty if Matheson goes? 

 

Do we do it at the draft instead?

I was really hoping we could defer it all to the summer and squeeze the juice out of one more draft. This upgrade of Carrier is only an upgrade until Savard goes. After Savard goes it’s a downgrade again, but better with Carrier back there than Barron.

 

Trading Matheson for just future help means Mailloux comes up to replace Savard and we might need Engstrom up to have 7 Dmen… 

 

We can play with as few as 20 players on the roster, right ? So maybe we forget Engstrom and ride with 6 defensemen, 13 forwards and 2 goalies…

 

One scratch a night.

 

Just spitballing.

 

Getting Willard, and then getting as low in the draft as possible would be great.

 

If we played enough games this year without Matheson we would also be weak for the rest of the year on defence and might lose enough games to stay relevant in the draft.

 

But the embarrassment of riches on the emerging defence would be tantalizing.

[Commandant]

5 hours ago, Butterface said:

Like Willander and a second ? … more ?

 

After Willander, we don’t need another roster player unless we are switching a roster player out.. or they are in college like Willander or on an ELC.

 

Until we say goodbye to Anderson and Gally, we are full up. So Willander and picks ? 
 

We’d have to mix up Laval if we took an ELC. 
 

I would love to get Willander out of it… then we can do as we like in the first round 2025 (we don’t need to worry about drafting a RHD with Calgarys pick). We could trade our 3 first round picks and a second round pick to get as low as possible in the draft. (Ours, vancouvers and calgarys.. plus our second..)

 

We don’t want more bodies. We want quality.

 

 

 

Firstly again, i think the strict adherence to the spreadsheet is not what the team does.  Sure they have planning like this but i think its way more flexible than you are making out to be.  The GMs job is always options.... if i do move a this then this.... if i do B then another plan... i do C then another.  Its always options and multiple different paths in team building.  Development, injuries, players on other teams suddenly becoming available.... all these things can change plans in an instant and GMs have to be flexible.

 

As for roster space dont forget you are moving Matheson out.

 

Also Willander is a quality top d prospect.  But he and others are just prospects.  They arent all gonna make it.  Put him in the mix and let him fight for future spots with the D prospects we have.  Keep the ones who impress and move the ones who dont hit that next level, like we have recently just done with Barron.

 

To me yes you need quality, but Willander is that and you can never have too many quality assets, especially at the rarer positions of RHD, centre, and goalie.

[Butterface]

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Firstly again, i think the strict adherence to the spreadsheet is not what the team does.  Sure they have planning like this but i think its way more flexible than you are making out to be.  The GMs job is always options.... if i do move a this then this.... if i do B then another plan... i do C then another.  Its always options and multiple different paths in team building.  Development, injuries, players on other teams suddenly becoming available.... all these things can change plans in an instant and GMs have to be flexible.

 

As for roster space dont forget you are moving Matheson out.

 

Also Willander is a quality top d prospect.  But he and others are just prospects.  They arent all gonna make it.  Put him in the mix and let him fight for future spots with the D prospects we have.  Keep the ones who impress and move the ones who dont hit that next level, like we have recently just done with Barron.

 

To me yes you need quality, but Willander is that and you can never have too many quality assets, especially at the rarer positions of RHD, centre, and goalie.

Maybe they don’t have a strict adherence to a spreadsheet.. I don’t know if I have a strict adherence to it. I would definitely lay contracts I was trading for on it before doing the trade to see the repercussions of my actions. Then weigh if the value of the trade (to make the team that much better) would make sense for all the havoc it may cause with my salary cap.

If I were running a team, and I’m not, this is definitely a tool I would heavily lean on. But if I see a trade that makes sense on the fly and I need to rip apart the spreadsheet, I would rip apart the spreadsheet. But immediately build a new spreadsheet around my new trade asset.

If that’s adherence, then yes I’m glue. I just don’t see another way to manage in a cap world. You have to know the future dollar values coming at you.

 

Moving Matheson out means 4.9M more dollars… which you have for three four years before you need to give that money to players who have contracts that need rolling over at higher dollar values. You have to keep in mind that Willard will need a raise 4 years from now just like Demidov and maybe our first overall in 2025 (although that is looking less likely if our upgrades translate to wins in next 3 months.)

[Commandant]

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here.

 

Of course some projection of future ans money/cap space is needed.

 

My point though is there isnt one spreadsheet.  There are multiple for a good GM.... for example Hughes has a plan A where Reinbacher develops, and a plan B if he doesnt.  A plan where Laine continues to thrive and is willing to sign and extension, and another where he struggles and has to be allowed to walk.

 

Its about having sheet A, B, C, D,E etc... and having options based on issues you can't predict.

[Butterface]

34 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here.

 

Of course some projection of future ans money/cap space is needed.

 

My point though is there isnt one spreadsheet.  There are multiple for a good GM.... for example Hughes has a plan A where Reinbacher develops, and a plan B if he doesnt.  A plan where Laine continues to thrive and is willing to sign and extension, and another where he struggles and has to be allowed to walk.

 

Its about having sheet A, B, C, D,E etc... and having options based on issues you can't predict.

Okay. I can see that.

 

I can’t build into my one spreadsheet injuries, trades and busts. I put in the most likely favourable outcomes, then reevaluate when injuries, trades and busts happen (and we can’t forget unbelievable bargains you can’t pass up (Laine)).

 

I can change future expected contract dollars and term when injuries and busts happen. So I think there is some fluidity there to make necessary corrections when expectations don’t meet reality.

 

Anyway it’s better to chat about it on the other panel than here.

 

Somewhere you said and I paraphrase, that Centres, RHD and goalies are rarer, they are more valuable than other positions. 
 

Has this always been the case or just more recent ?

 

Should there be an argument that a GM only draft those three positions and trade for the rest ? (Maybe they already do that and I haven’t noticed) Then they are always trading from a position of strength.. of coarse this may only apply after the top 10 draft picks are accounted for. Talent first then for the rest of the draft only pick those three positions. Or at least lean towards this goal.