Jump to content

Permanent Trade Proposal Thread


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

then my proposal makes sense:

Drouin as a rental for their 3rd-line and PP. Edmundson for the second pair and lower cap than Dumba and Norlinder as a prospect with higher ceiling than Spacek.

No it doesn't as Edmundson is adding money next season. 

 

Dumba is a 0 next season as they will not be re-signing him (as it currently stands). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mathematics is hard, I know 😋

this year: Dumba + Goligoski = $6M + $2M = $8M

this year: Drouin + Edmundson = $5.5M + $3.5M = $9M ---> if MIN swaps these, it will use $1M of LTIR

 

next year: No Dumba + No Goligoski = -($8M)

next year: No Drouin + Edmundson = $3.5M for one year ---> MIN will have a top-4 D and $4.5M extra cap room

 

MIN can decide how to use that extra money, either on renewing contracts or to absorb playes currently on LTIR

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

mathematics is hard, I know 😋

this year: Dumba + Goligoski = $6M + $2M = $8M

this year: Drouin + Edmundson = $5.5M + $3.5M = $9M ---> if MIN swaps these, it will use $1M of LTIR

 

next year: No Dumba + No Goligoski = -($8M)

next year: No Drouin + Edmundson = $3.5M for one year ---> MIN will have a top-4 D and $4.5M extra cap room

 

MIN can decide how to use that extra money, either on renewing contracts or to absorb playes currently on LTIR

 

This trade adds $1.5 million to their books next season compared to what it looks like today.  That's the relevant math here.

 

MIN commitments for next season pre-trade (to 13 players): $74.165 million

MIN commitments for next season post-trade (to 13 players): $75.665 million

 

While players like Dumba are coming off their books, they've already spent his money on Boldy's extension.  You have to factor that into consideration which is why breaking it down like above is the easier way to lay it out.

 

Considering they need to still fill out a roster and sign at least 7 more players (probably 8 or 9), the salary cap is pegged at $83.5 million, and the minimum salary is $775,000, they simply cannot afford to add salary for next year.  This is why they're shopping Greenway and Goligoski and are telling teams that they can only take rentals as, again, they cannot afford to add money for next year.   They can't take Edmundson, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

This trade adds $1.5 million to their books next season compared to what it looks like today.  That's the relevant math here.

 

MIN commitments for next season pre-trade (to 13 players): $74.165 million

MIN commitments for next season post-trade (to 13 players): $75.665 million

 

While players like Dumba are coming off their books, they've already spent his money on Boldy's extension.  You have to factor that into consideration which is why breaking it down like above is the easier way to lay it out.

 

Considering they need to still fill out a roster and sign at least 7 more players (probably 8 or 9), the salary cap is pegged at $83.5 million, and the minimum salary is $775,000, they simply cannot afford to add salary for next year.  This is why they're shopping Greenway and Goligoski and are telling teams that they can only take rentals as, again, they cannot afford to add money for next year.   They can't take Edmundson, plain and simple.

I had not checked Boldy ot the post-trade for next season, because I was thinking in terms of the playoff run since their aging veterans locked for multiple seasons are, well... aging

 

I think they may want to pull a Bergie and get into the playoff where "anything can happen"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I think they may want to pull a Bergie and get into the playoff where "anything can happen"

 

They do want to get into the playoffs.  They're buying, they've already added Nyquist and Johansson.  But they've been very up front, they are not considering trades for non-rental players as their salary cap situation doesn't allow them to add money.  I expect they'll make another move as well but again, it'll be for someone on an expiring contract.

 

Edit: I should clarify, they are linked to Boeser but the hold-up is that Vancouver doesn't want to retain or take a lot of money back.  If they find a way to free up a contract or two (maybe Greenway and Goligoski) and the Canucks retain a bit on Boeser, he's the one exception for a contract beyond this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

They do want to get into the playoffs.  They're buying, they've already added Nyquist and Johansson.  But they've been very up front, they are not considering trades for non-rental players as their salary cap situation doesn't allow them to add money.  I expect they'll make another move as well but again, it'll be for someone on an expiring contract.

 

Edit: I should clarify, they are linked to Boeser but the hold-up is that Vancouver doesn't want to retain or take a lot of money back.  If they find a way to free up a contract or two (maybe Greenway and Goligoski) and the Canucks retain a bit on Boeser, he's the one exception for a contract beyond this season.

 

thank you @dlbalr

you are always insightful and respectful of my brash ignorance .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this was apparently the original Pittsburgh proposal for Petry last year:

 

The Habs wound up with Matheson and a 4th.  Right now, holding out for Matheson looks like the better move.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2022 at 3:44 PM, Plutarch said:

I guess I wasn't clear in my earlier posts. I was trying to find possible moves for each player. That doesn't mean they are the best moves.

 

I wasn't focusing on Appleton because I want him. He just was the expendable player that has SOME potential value next season to flip for a mid round pick. Having a bottom six guy next year to play harder defensive minutes then flip for a 4-5th isn't a terrible move. IF you can't find a use for your retention spots.

 

Also I find it very hard to believe we will be using all three of our retention slots this deadline without one on Drouin.

 

I 100% do not mean to be rude but you say these three way retention trades are increasing... They aren't as far as I can tell. 2020: 1 Lehner, 2021: 3 Janmark, Foligno, Savard. 2022: 1 Domi. Basically there was one year where it happened more. It will take off in the future but not yet. Maybe it's GM's not liking helping out the teams or owners arent into taking on salary just yet due to lost revenues (yes they are high now but maybe they are still hesitant).

 

I guess I don't see why the idea of losing one of our retention spot for the 1 or 2 deals that might use it when there are likely 10 other teams capable. Makes a retaining Drouin trade a terrible idea.

 

Sure the Winnipeg one might be not great but i don't see any other team that would be vaguely interested. So realistically Drouin probably is just going to hang with us the rest the season.

 

 

On 12/14/2022 at 4:35 PM, dlbalr said:

 

One retention slot will be Monahan and I'm quite confident at least one will be a third-party retention slot.  They're already being linked as a team that's expected to do so and with them having some LTIR room, they can do so without much issue.  I think the preference for #3 right now is Dadonov who should have more value than Drouin's (which isn't saying much).  Hoffman would be a darkhorse if they opt to retain a bit to match salary in a player-for-player swap which would be better than retaining 50% on Drouin for next to nothing.  I was hoping Byron might be back at some point and him at 50% for his PK ability might have had a taker or two but that's not happening by the looks of it.

 

Five of those in three years is an increase compared to what it was before although truth be told, I thought there were more last year.  I know I wrote about third-party possibilities enough on PHR that I suspected there were more than that a year ago but I do appreciate you taking the effort to look that up.  I do expect there will be several moves like that this season.  With some sellers having retention slots and not much of value to trade, they'll get creative and with way more cap-strapped teams this time around, they'll find willing partners.

 

With Drouin, I just don't see a team that would want him, including the Jets.  If you're a team that wants to go far in the playoffs, is he really who you'd want to add?  If the answer is no, then they should be pivoting toward looking for other options to use those slots on.  Maybe I'm wrong and he goes on a nice run and someone wants him.  That'd be nice but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Well we didn't use our three retention slots... But the teams certainly blew the floodgates off using retention in trades this deadline!!! My doubt was misplaced in league GMs 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2023 at 2:57 PM, alfredoh2009 said:

I know this is unlikely to happen, but in a swap of expiring contracts:

To MIN: Drouin($5.5M/UFA'23), Edmundson($3.56M/UFA'24) and Norlinder(LD)

To MTL: Dumba(RD$6.0M/UFA'23), Goligoski(LD$2.0M/UFA'24), Spacek(RD)

 

MIN gets a cheaper experienced D with a similar term than Goligoski but less expensive than Dumba. Drouin may find a role there or walk. They also get a long shot LD that may provide some offensive production from the back if he develops

 

MON gets a chance to sign Dumba who is a RD and would fit well with the Habs during the rebuild, although he may be too expensive for the Habs. They also get a prospect RD that is more two-way or defensive but that may complement well the LD prospects they have. Goligoski is the price to pay to get the trade done and may be used sparingly like Wideman with both players becoming UFAs in 2024.

 

D. Spacek getting some love in MIN:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...


Ive questioned a trade for Dubious because we can get him for free if we wait a year. 
 

I’ve also considered if a trade would make sense. Would a year of Dubious be worth sending one of our LD like Harris (not Matheson of course) and a junker like Armia? 
 

Is that worth it to us? It would help with contract stuff and it would give us a little time to evaluate him before handing him a big deal. 
 

What about Jets? They know they are losing him and and potential deadline trade is know as a pure rental so return may not be great. 
 

Whatcha all think? Is there a deal to be had here, even if different than my idea? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


Ive questioned a trade for Dubious because we can get him for free if we wait a year. 
 

I’ve also considered if a trade would make sense. Would a year of Dubious be worth sending one of our LD like Harris (not Matheson of course) and a junker like Armia? 
 

Is that worth it to us? It would help with contract stuff and it would give us a little time to evaluate him before handing him a big deal. 
 

What about Jets? They know they are losing him and and potential deadline trade is know as a pure rental so return may not be great. 
 

Whatcha all think? Is there a deal to be had here, even if different than my idea? 

 

 

There is a deal to be had here if Hughes wants to do it. The big question is when?  The closer Dubois gets to UFA status the less leverage Cheveldayoff has and the more Hughes has. They both know this.  You could easily wait until next year and sign him and give up nothing. However if you can make the right deal earlier it might make it easier for Hughes to plan next steps at the draft knowing your #1 and #2 center ice positions are locked up for a while. A lot to think about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


Ive questioned a trade for Dubious because we can get him for free if we wait a year. 
 

I’ve also considered if a trade would make sense. Would a year of Dubious be worth sending one of our LD like Harris (not Matheson of course) and a junker like Armia? 
 

Is that worth it to us? It would help with contract stuff and it would give us a little time to evaluate him before handing him a big deal. 
 

What about Jets? They know they are losing him and and potential deadline trade is know as a pure rental so return may not be great. 
 

Whatcha all think? Is there a deal to be had here, even if different than my idea? 

Why would the jets want a junker like Armia? Or even if we included Matheson? They have better chance of making the playoffs with PLD, and adding pieces for one more run, before they also lose control of Scheifele and their best player - Helleybuck, than being a playoff team next year without PLD, and have an overpaid 3rd/4th liner and one dimensional second pairing dman?  I think they’d want someone who’s a difference maker not salary cap junk dump (referring to Armia).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

 

There is a deal to be had here if Hughes wants to do it. The big question is when?  The closer Dubois gets to UFA status the less leverage Cheveldayoff has and the more Hughes has. They both know this.  You could easily wait until next year and sign him and give up nothing. However if you can make the right deal earlier it might make it easier for Hughes to plan next steps at the draft knowing your #1 and #2 center ice positions are locked up for a while. A lot to think about. 

I think we be giving up a top D and forward prospects and a first rounder to make it happen. This isn’t a Chicago with Kane situation where Kane was only willing to go to one team AND the hawks had zero chance at the playoffs. I can see another team willing to give up more for one year for a top centre than spare parts and salary cap albatross like Armia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Why would the jets want a junker like Armia? Or even if we included Matheson? They have better chance of making the playoffs with PLD, and adding pieces for one more run, before they also lose control of Scheifele and their best player - Helleybuck, than being a playoff team next year without PLD, and have an overpaid 3rd/4th liner and one dimensional second pairing dman?  I think they’d want someone who’s a difference maker not salary cap junk dump (referring to Armia).

 

30 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think we be giving up a top D and forward prospects and a first rounder to make it happen. This isn’t a Chicago with Kane situation where Kane was only willing to go to one team AND the hawks had zero chance at the playoffs. I can see another team willing to give up more for one year for a top centre than spare parts and salary cap albatross like Armia.


Everything you say is part of the discussion. Can we make a deal here?

 

Habs will never give up Matheson for Dubois so I consider that off the table. If a Matheson type return is what Jets demand then there is no deal to be had. 
 

From the jet’s perspective they either try and win next season or they try and get value for a guy that is walking to UFA. Every team know that Dubois is going to be a Canadien so his trade value is pure rental. 
 

In my proposal, I added what I consider to be a very good second pairing Dman from a glut of LD on our team. He is young and proving to reliable - he would be a part of the Jets for a long time. In order to get a player like Harris, you have to take Armia. 
 

The Jets aren’t getting a big payday on Dubois IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope we don't give up serious assets for Dubois this summer. If he's '95% a Canadien' then let him put his money where his mouth is! It would be huge for the rebuild to get a first line caliber player for no return.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Neech said:

I really hope we don't give up serious assets for Dubois this summer. If he's '95% a Canadien' then let him put his money where his mouth is! It would be huge for the rebuild to get a first line caliber player for no return.

Dangerous to assume it is "Montreal or bust" for PLD ... My fear is he gets traded at the deadline to a team that then wins the Cup, or makes the Finals, and has/makes the room to re-sign him to "keep the gang together" for a second run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Dangerous to assume it is "Montreal or bust" for PLD ... My fear is he gets traded at the deadline to a team that then wins the Cup, or makes the Finals, and has/makes the room to re-sign him to "keep the gang together" for a second run.

 

I agree or he might just get tired of waiting for the Habs to trade for him.  It's not often you get a big 24 year old stud centre, who is also French Canadian (not the reason you trade for him but it is a bonus) saying (not outwardly anyway) that he wants to play for you.  It is definitely worth exploring but no need to give up the farm for him at this point. I have confidence that Hughes will play this out right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I agree or he might just get tired of waiting for the Habs to trade for him.  It's not often you get a big 24 year old stud centre, who is also French Canadian (not the reason you trade for him but it is a bonus) saying (not outwardly anyway) that he wants to play for you.  It is definitely worth exploring but no need to give up the farm for him at this point. I have confidence that Hughes will play this out right. 


Exactly this. 
 

There is benefit to getting Dubois a year early though. It gives the Habs a year before we make our big contract offer. We get to see how much we like him before committing. 
 

The cost of that is what I’m wrestling with. My angle is partially about using our glut of LD to make it happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

 


Everything you say is part of the discussion. Can we make a deal here?

 

Habs will never give up Matheson for Dubois so I consider that off the table. If a Matheson type return is what Jets demand then there is no deal to be had. 
 

From the jet’s perspective they either try and win next season or they try and get value for a guy that is walking to UFA. Every team know that Dubois is going to be a Canadien so his trade value is pure rental. 
 

In my proposal, I added what I consider to be a very good second pairing Dman from a glut of LD on our team. He is young and proving to reliable - he would be a part of the Jets for a long time. In order to get a player like Harris, you have to take Armia. 
 

The Jets aren’t getting a big payday on Dubois IMO

I get that you don’t want to give up much for PLD - I don’t either, given adding him next year isn’t going to get us into the playoffs anyways. 
 

But someone will be willing to give up something similar to what the isles gave up for Horvat. I get Horvat resigned with them, but the Canucks weren’t allowing teams to negotiate prior to a trade. I can see a team giving up a top prospect and a first rounder at a minimum -

more if the jets ray half the salary. So I think the jets can get more than Harris and and a cap anchor.

 

personally, I think if they can’t get good value for him, they may hang in and try to make a run while they still have Scheifele and Helleybuyck (their MVP), and Ehlers. The first two have two years left while Ehlers has three.  I can’t see Helleybucyck resigning in Winnipeg - but then I never thought Wheelers would either. If they win and have success, it may convince some of those guys to stay. They aren’t going to stay because their GM replaced PLD with Harris, and they certainly are not a better team by making that trade.

 

I’d rather wait it out and see if PLD wants to sign when h is a UFA, but it would depend on how much he wants. If he can get $10m, on the open market as a UFA, I’d pass. Bringing in Tavares is actually hurting the leafs in building a team, I certainly don’t want to make the same mistake, when we still have Caufield to resign, and hopefully Slafkovsky will earn a Pasternak type contract. I certainly wouldn’t pay that much for PLD. He’s a good player, who is happily sign to a deal in the $8m range, but I wouldn’t consider him to be a franchise player, that id go too much higher than Suzuki.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neech said:

I really hope we don't give up serious assets for Dubois this summer. If he's '95% a Canadien' then let him put his money where his mouth is! It would be huge for the rebuild to get a first line caliber player for no return.

Agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I agree or he might just get tired of waiting for the Habs to trade for him.  It's not often you get a big 24 year old stud centre, who is also French Canadian (not the reason you trade for him but it is a bonus) saying (not outwardly anyway) that he wants to play for you.  It is definitely worth exploring but no need to give up the farm for him at this point. I have confidence that Hughes will play this out right. 

Why rush into a deal and give up a lot of good players for him, when we still won’t be a playoff team.

If he decides to go elsewhere fine. But you build through the draft. We aren’t at that point in our development as a team that you start moving high picks and prospects YET. When you are ready to win, you can start to give up assets, you don’t do it on the hope that PLD is the guy.
 

even with only a year left we are looking at giving up a top prospect, 1st rounder+. You do that when you are ready to win for a difference maker. PLD hasn’t been the main guy on either of his two teams, and I wouldn’t want to be mortgaging the future so we can be on the cusp of being a bubble team.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

Dangerous to assume it is "Montreal or bust" for PLD ... My fear is he gets traded at the deadline to a team that then wins the Cup, or makes the Finals, and has/makes the room to re-sign him to "keep the gang together" for a second run.

I'm going off what Lebrun said, that it is indeed Montreal or bust. If he ends up signing somewhere else longterm then we will have avoided a risky player who has quit on two teams already. Let's give him the chance to come here on his own, and not make a costly trade that could set the rebuild back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I agree or he might just get tired of waiting for the Habs to trade for him.  It's not often you get a big 24 year old stud centre, who is also French Canadian (not the reason you trade for him but it is a bonus) saying (not outwardly anyway) that he wants to play for you.  It is definitely worth exploring but no need to give up the farm for him at this point. I have confidence that Hughes will play this out right. 

 

Is he a stud centre though?  He had a hot streak to start the season but has cooled off considerably since then.  Since the calendar flipped to 2023, he's at 8-10-18 in 29 games.  That's a 51-point pace.  He'll beat that obviously with the hot start this season but the end result is likely to land somewhere in the 60-65-point range.  I don't think that qualifies as a stud centre.  I think that qualifies as a 1B type of player.  Still valuable, don't get me wrong, but he's not coming in and becoming an elite piece by any stretch.

 

To answer the original question, the Habs don't have all the cards here.  Winnipeg isn't taking 25 cents on the dollar to just get something for him.  If that's all they can get, they'll hold him and see if they get off to a good start to try to take a run next year.  Otherwise, he's trade bait at the deadline where they'd get a better return than a lowball offer from Montreal.

 

Fundamentally, the idea makes sense from Montreal's perspective.  The Habs get one RFA year on the contract which saves a tiny bit on the AAV and the potential to offset some salary in the short term.  But Winnipeg would have to get a quality piece that fits their roster (they have a lot of LD so Harris probably isn't all that desirable) for it to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Why rush into a deal and give up a lot of good players for him, when we still won’t be a playoff team.

If he decides to go elsewhere fine. But you build through the draft. We aren’t at that point in our development as a team that you start moving high picks and prospects YET. When you are ready to win, you can start to give up assets, you don’t do it on the hope that PLD is the guy.
 

even with only a year left we are looking at giving up a top prospect, 1st rounder+. You do that when you are ready to win for a difference maker. PLD hasn’t been the main guy on either of his two teams, and I wouldn’t want to be mortgaging the future so we can be on the cusp of being a bubble team.

 

I am not saying you rush into a deal. I am saying you explore, see what the cost is and if it's too high then you wait. Hughes can afford to wait, Cheveldayoff can't wait too long or he will be disappointed. I don't think there is any way he gets a Horvat type return if he waits until the trade deadline next year as the Islanders knew they would have a chance to resign him. If teams think Dubois is going the UFA route for sure then they won't pay up the same way although at the trade deadline we have seen teams do stupid things. 

 

It's always hard to predict the following season. You never know when things comes together for a bunch of young guys.  The Devils had 63 points last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...