alfredoh2009 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 19 hours ago, illWill said: Definitely on board for a Malkin trade, but I wouldn't include Mailloux in that deal unless we were getting more back. We are already thin on RD, so I don't think it's in our best interest to send one away, especially one who could actually pop. I'd look at dealing Struble or even Arber instead. I agree that the Habs are thin on RD like most teams. LAK had too many RDs a few years back and I do not think either the trade capital or the depth on RD helped them get over the hump. On the other hand, I do not believe that Mailloux will be a Montreal Canadiens. He will be traded due to his past, not because of his on-ice performance or lack-of. But Malkin is not whom I would be looking to trade him for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Regarding Malkin, I think the Penguins will likely get maximum value at the trade deadline so they might as well wait. That's if they decide to trade him. Trading him now would also send an awful signal to Crosby that they have already given up on the year. I think Sid is still clinging to some hope of a playoff run next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 4 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said: I agree that the Habs are thin on RD like most teams. LAK had too many RDs a few years back and I do not think either the trade capital or the depth on RD helped them get over the hump. On the other hand, I do not believe that Mailloux will be a Montreal Canadiens. He will be traded due to his past, not because of his on-ice performance or lack-of. But Malkin is not whom I would be looking to trade him for. I don't get on board with this argument. If he's getting traded because of his past, then why would a team acquire him despite of his past ? You might/could say something like "The great great great franchise of Le Club de Hockey Canadiens de Montréal" blablabla, but it should be the same standards for every franchise, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 minutes ago, JoeLassister said: I don't get on board with this argument. If he's getting traded because of his past, then why would a team acquire him despite of his past ? You might/could say something like "The great great great franchise of Le Club de Hockey Canadiens de Montréal" blablabla, but it should be the same standards for every franchise, IMO. I agree, if it was because of his past, HuGo would have moved him before signing his ELC, before playing in Laval, and before making his NHL debut as a Canadien. I think the reason why he might be moved is cause he has value and you have to give something of value to get something of value. Roy and 2nd aren't throw in pieces to my offer, the value is in Mailloux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 13 minutes ago, JoeLassister said: I don't get on board with this argument. If he's getting traded because of his past, then why would a team acquire him despite of his past ? You might/could say something like "The great great great franchise of Le Club de Hockey Canadiens de Montréal" blablabla, but it should be the same standards for every franchise, IMO. Mailloux was a pick of MB and I think Hughes had some concerns regarding character. Perhaps he doesn't have those concerns anymore which would be a big positive. I think in some ways Mailloux would be better off in a place where his past wouldn't come up as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 36 minutes ago, JoeLassister said: I don't get on board with this argument. If he's getting traded because of his past, then why would a team acquire him despite of his past ? You might/could say something like "The great great great franchise of Le Club de Hockey Canadiens de Montréal" blablabla, but it should be the same standards for every franchise, IMO. Chatal Macabé is pretty diligent at keeping the Habs image squeaky clean. For the Habs, who traded their captain for flipping the finger… they ar still in that mode. Other teams don’t care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 22 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said: Chatal Macabé is pretty diligent at keeping the Habs image squeaky clean. For the Habs, who traded their captain for flipping the finger… they ar still in that mode. Other teams don’t care If they were such still in that mode, Mailloux would have never been drafted in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 9 minutes ago, JoeLassister said: If they were such still in that mode, Mailloux would have never been drafted in the first place. Buddy, you forget they were fired. Right !? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 43 minutes ago, Commandant said: I think the reason why he might be moved is cause he has value and you have to give something of value to get something of value. AND/OR, the Habs have concerns with his defensive play and are willing to risk him resolving them to move him while he has value before he proves he won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 21 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said: Buddy, you forget they were fired. Right !? Ownership, that would set the tone for "PR sensitivity", hasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said: Buddy, you forget they were fired. Right !? They were fired, not after the pick. But more than 6 months later when the team was in last place. Ownership signed off on the pick. Its nearly three years later and he hasnt been traded and has signed a contract, and has been called up to the NHL twice. The, he will be traded cause of PR, argument falls flat after all of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, GHT120 said: AND/OR, the Habs have concerns with his defensive play and are willing to risk him resolving them to move him while he has value before he proves he won't. Yes thats part of my thinking too. And why im willing to move him for a short term answer at #2 c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 7 hours ago, WildTurkeyXX said: A week or so ago I proposed the idea of trading a single first round pick (17th overall) in exchange for a mid 30's center with two years left on a contract, with enough tread left on the tires to believe there would be a reasonable possibility of re-signing (if the performance warranted it). I was then thoroughly educated on the value of premium assets, and why we shouldn't consider trading them for aging, bandaid solutions. Considering Malkin has even less tread on the tires (at 39) and only one year remaining... As much as I do think he would be an interesting consideration, I don't think I could justify more than Mesar and a 2nd for him. Maybe that's an under bid, but that's as much as I'd be willing to pay. You suggested a much bigger trade which included adding Marchessault and getting rid of Laine, effectively locking us into that ling term, big money winger spot for.4 years instead of 1 with Laine. And for a guy who is small and aging. You want to do Mailloux and Roy for Stamkos? Id say yes to that but im not taking on a long term bad contract too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildTurkeyXX Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 18 minutes ago, Commandant said: You suggested a much bigger trade which included adding Marchessault and getting rid of Laine, effectively locking us into that ling term, big money winger spot for.4 years instead of 1 with Laine. And for a guy who is small and aging. You want to do Mailloux and Roy for Stamkos? Id say yes to that but im not taking on a long term bad contract too. Oh, no. I was referring to our discussion that sprung from my proposing our 17th for O'Rielly. Which we quickly concluded wasn't specifically practical, but continued to talk generally about the fundamentals of such a deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 31 minutes ago, Commandant said: They were fired, not after the pick. But more than 6 months later when the team was in last place. Ownership signed off on the pick. Its nearly three years later and he hasnt been traded and has signed a contract, and has been called up to the NHL twice. The, he will be traded cause of PR, argument falls flat after all of that. Indeed. The Habs, having drafted him, did right by him: supporting him as he did the work, which has hopefully made him a better person. I don’t think his past will even be mentioned if and when he makes the big team, except perhaps briefly as something he learned from.* If they trade him now, it will be a hockey trade, not a PR move. * It is perversely helpful that we’ve learned since then (if we couldn’t guess already) that there is a systematic problem with misogyny in hockey. Mailloux was probably the ‘guy who got caught’ rather than a radical outlier who did something few or none of his peers would do. Nauseating, but there it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 9 minutes ago, WildTurkeyXX said: Oh, no. I was referring to our discussion that sprung from my proposing our 17th for O'Rielly. Which we quickly concluded wasn't specifically practical, but continued to talk generally about the fundamentals of such a deal. Id rather Malkin as i think his game fits better with Demidov. There are a few others Id rather have. But a straight up trade of 17 for O'Reilly would be something Id do. He did not want to be traded at the deadline though and says he wants to stay and finish what he started in Nashville so Im not sure its an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 5 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: Regarding Malkin, I think the Penguins will likely get maximum value at the trade deadline so they might as well wait. That's if they decide to trade him. Trading him now would also send an awful signal to Crosby that they have already given up on the year. I think Sid is still clinging to some hope of a playoff run next year. That's also if Malkin decides to waive his full no-trade/no-move clause. A long time ago (and I mean probably more than a decade ago), I seem to remember reading that he said something along the lines that he'd be okay with the Rangers or Montreal if he ever was to move on from Pittsburgh (something about wanting to play in a major hockey market) but for years now, he has made it clear that he only wants to play for the Penguins. I'm not sure an appeal of 'do you want to play for one last Cup' will make him change his mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 I don't want to trade Mailloux or either of our first round picks for anyone over the age of 33. I'd rather keep those assets and swing for the fences with them. If we are not getting someone who will be around and effective in 3 or 4 years when we (hopefully) will be serious contenders then we should keep our assets. Helping Demidov's development for 2 years is important but I'm not convinced Malkin is significantly better at that than many others. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Peter Puck said: but I'm not convinced Malkin is significantly better at that than many others. However, I think he is better than what we've got 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Malkin would allow us another year to address the 2C spot through trade or free agency - we punt because we didn’t find a long term solution this summer. Malkin would surely be of great personal benefit to Demidov as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Indeed. The Habs, having drafted him, did right by him: supporting him as he did the work, which has hopefully made him a better person. I don’t think his past will even be mentioned if and when he makes the big team, except perhaps briefly as something he learned from.* If they trade him now, it will be a hockey trade, not a PR move. * It is perversely helpful that we’ve learned since then (if we couldn’t guess already) that there is a systematic problem with misogyny in hockey. Mailloux was probably the ‘guy who got caught’ rather than a radical outlier who did something few or none of his peers would do. Nauseating, but there it is. I hope you are right, I am rooting for the to bounce from that. And for the organization to show their seriousness in tackling g the broader issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 hour ago, GHT120 said: However, I think he is better than what we've got that shall be addressed this summer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 hour ago, GHT120 said: However, I think he is better than what we've got He is but for a 2C that's a pretty low bar. It's likely a moot point anyway as I just don't see him being traded in the off season, more likely a trade deadline deal if the Pens are out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 17 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said: that shall be addressed this summer We hope. There are more teams looking for #2c than the number of #2c on the market. So someone can be not the first choice but still a possible option worth a discussion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 10 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said: that shall be addressed this summer And NOBODY has suggested that Malkin is the best option, just a possible option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.