The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 On this Anderson to Van idea…Rutherford and Alvin just spent three years extricating themselves from the mess of Jim Benning’s atrocious contract management. I really don’t think they’ll jump right back in the sh*theap first chance they get. Now, if the Habs retain substantial salary, such that they get him at a decent cap hit, then maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 8 hours ago, Dalhabs said: I have this feeling we better keep Savard as veteran help for all young D coming here. Only trade him if someone throws everything at us for him. I don't disagree at all, there is something to be said for keeping a veteran presence on defense. I think Hughes would have to really like the offer he gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 3 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: On this Anderson to Van idea…Rutherford and Alvin just spent three years extricating themselves from the mess of Jim Benning’s atrocious contract management. I really don’t think they’ll jump right back in the sh*theap first chance they get. Now, if the Habs retain substantial salary, such that they get him at a decent cap hit, then maybe. I think the Habs have zero interest in retaining salary on Anderson for the next 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 22 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: I think the Habs have zero interest in retaining salary on Anderson for the next 4 years. An Anderson trade will currently (now or this summer) only happen if the other GM feels they can "fix" Josh and the Habs take back a similarly bad, but shorter term, contract; otherwise, why bother making the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, GHT120 said: An Anderson trade will currently (now or this summer) only happen if the other GM feels they can "fix" Josh and the Habs take back a similarly bad, but shorter term, contract; otherwise, why bother making the trade. There is no point in selling low, Anderson will be a Hab for a while. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 3 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: There is no point in selling low, Anderson will be a Hab for a while. The point I-M-O is simply getting rid of him ... he is not part of the long or even mid-term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 35 minutes ago, GHT120 said: The point I-M-O is simply getting rid of him ... he is not part of the long or even mid-term. Neither is Gallagher. How do you propose getting rid of him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: Neither is Gallagher. How do you propose getting rid of him? I don't ... I-M-O he would be harder to move than Anderson; unless Bergevin gets a GM job ... unless they decide to buy him out, I expect him to be a ridiculously overpaid 3/4th liner next season and a 4th liner for the final two years of his contract ... unless he decides to request termination (unlikely). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 8 minutes ago, GHT120 said: I don't ... I-M-O he would be harder to move than Anderson; unless Bergevin gets a GM job ... unless they decide to buy him out, I expect him to be a ridiculously overpaid 3/4th liner next season and a 4th liner for the final two years of his contract ... unless he decides to request termination (unlikely). I agree about Gallagher. Anderson is tough to move but easier than Gallagher. The only sensible thing to do with Anderson is to hope he has a rebound year next year and regains some value. Then make a decision. I don't believe Anderson is over the hill at 29. Hughes will be patient with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 6 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: There is no point in selling low, Anderson will be a Hab for a while. I think there's a bigger market for him than many think. I'm not saying he has top-end value but I think there are some teams who would do a player-player swap. Is someone on a similar contract who's also underachieving who might be a better fit with this style a good enough return to move Anderson now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, dlbalr said: I think there's a bigger market for him than many think. I'm not saying he has top-end value but I think there are some teams who would do a player-player swap. Is someone on a similar contract who's also underachieving who might be a better fit with this style a good enough return to move Anderson now? For me ... yes If he doesn't "rebound" next year his value will only fall ... even a better but poor season could reduce his trade value. If they can get rid of him for a player more "useful" for the remaining years of his contract (ideally fewer) then *** I *** would make the deal in a split second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 39 minutes ago, dlbalr said: I think there's a bigger market for him than many think. I'm not saying he has top-end value but I think there are some teams who would do a player-player swap. Is someone on a similar contract who's also underachieving who might be a better fit with this style a good enough return to move Anderson now? You might be right. Anderson at his best can be a force and other teams are aware of what he could potentially bring unlike a slow and somewhat broken down Gallagher. I can't think of a player who might fit that category but they may be out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 41 minutes ago, GHT120 said: If he doesn't "rebound" next year his value will only fall ... even a better but poor season could reduce his trade value. Perhaps but maybe not. After next year he has only 2years left on his contract so then a buyout might make sense if he hasn't recovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 18 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: You might be right. Anderson at his best can be a force and other teams are aware of what he could potentially bring unlike a slow and somewhat broken down Gallagher. I can't think of a player who might fit that category but they may be out there. There's a reason I've brought up Mikheyev a couple of times in this recent discussion. He might be the match. $4.75M for one less year and his style might be a better fit for Montreal's system than Anderson while Anderson's might fit Vancouver's better. Mikheyev has dropped to the fourth line as of late so his stock is down (and his tendency to get injured would fit right in with this roster...). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, dlbalr said: There's a reason I've brought up Mikheyev a couple of times in this recent discussion. He might be the match. $4.75M for one less year and his style might be a better fit for Montreal's system than Anderson while Anderson's might fit Vancouver's better. Mikheyev has dropped to the fourth line as of late so his stock is down (and his tendency to get injured would fit right in with this roster...). Agreed, he might be a good match. Similar age, good skater, has some skill. If Vancouver values Anderson's physical play then there could be a good fit there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just looking at Vancouver's roster, Connor Garland has a similar contract (1 year less) and has struggled bit this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 If we have the opportunity to move on from Anderson, I'd say we do it. His contract is teetering on the brink of being a toxic asset with his injury history and limited production. If we get Mikheyev back for instance, just getting out of that final year of Andy's deal would be huge for us, because we'd presumably be good at that point and need that money for our key contributors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Its also not necessarily the final deal. Trade for mikeyhev who has one fewer year on his contract. Let him play a bit. If he fits in this lineup, great. If he doesnt, look to move him for a guy with one fewer year on his deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 10 minutes ago, Commandant said: Its also not necessarily the final deal. Trade for mikeyhev who has one fewer year on his contract. Let him play a bit. If he fits in this lineup, great. If he doesnt, look to move him for a guy with one fewer year on his deal. The Mikheyev idea is a good one, actually. It's quite possible that Tocchet looks at Andy and sees "a Rick Tocchet player." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Sounds like Vancouver is entertaining the idea of trading Pettersson as extension talks have stalled. They still hope they can resign him. The rumors have it, IF they do in fact trade him, they will be looking to bring in players with term. If he is in fact being traded, wouldn't offering Suzuki+ for Pettersson be a good idea? He's an upgrade offensively, Suzuki is having a career year, and Pettersson's value isn't has high as it should be because of the need to trade him. Vancouver will be looking for a replacement at center, and probably more. I don't see a scenario where it would happen without Caufield/Suzuki going the other way, with emphasis on replacing Pettersson at center. I have no idea the the + would entail. Just tossing out the idea here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 34 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said: Sounds like Vancouver is entertaining the idea of trading Pettersson as extension talks have stalled. They still hope they can resign him. The rumors have it, IF they do in fact trade him, they will be looking to bring in players with term. If he is in fact being traded, wouldn't offering Suzuki+ for Pettersson be a good idea? He's an upgrade offensively, Suzuki is having a career year, and Pettersson's value isn't has high as it should be because of the need to trade him. Vancouver will be looking for a replacement at center, and probably more. I don't see a scenario where it would happen without Caufield/Suzuki going the other way, with emphasis on replacing Pettersson at center. I have no idea the the + would entail. Just tossing out the idea here. There is logic in entertaining a trade. Pettersson is elite, no doubt about that and it would make sense Vancouver would ask for Suzuki plus and rightly so. Elite centers don't grow on trees. One factor to consider is that Suzuki is signed to a pretty favourable long term contract. If he delivers 75-80 points a year, plays a strong 2 way game than 7.8M/year is a very good contract for the Habs especially with the cap going up. Pettersson will be demanding Nylander type money (11M plus ) and rightly so. He is in a great bargaining position. A lot to consider, how much the plus would be for the Habs and how much they would have to pay him. Apparently they have had talks with Carolina. Vancouver could take KK back, he certainly has term. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: There is logic in entertaining a trade. Pettersson is elite, no doubt about that and it would make sense Vancouver would ask for Suzuki plus and rightly so. Elite centers don't grow on trees. An upgrade on Suzuki, but Habs have other holes in roster, why make a move like that now? A centre for a centre, still leaves Habs without a legit #2 centre but, if could add Pettersson for a winger (Caufield) and young d (Guhle) &/or picks would be more appetizing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, DON said: An upgrade on Suzuki, but Habs have other holes in roster, why make a move like that now? A centre for a centre, still leaves Habs without a legit #2 centre but, if could add Pettersson for a winger (Caufield) and young d (Guhle) &/or picks would be more appetizing. I would rather keep Caufield. Keep Caufield and Pettersson on different line as they’re both goal scorers. In theory it should spread out scoring and give Caufield easier opponents. I don’t think Guhle and Caufield for Pettersson is a fair trade. Vancouver would definitely have to sweeten the pot some to get that to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 3 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said: I don’t think Guhle and Caufield for Pettersson is a fair trade. Vancouver would definitely have to sweeten the pot some to get that to work. Really, I think the Habs do that in a hearbeat. Pettersson and Suzuki as your #1 and #2 centers. Yikes!! Of course they would need to find some wingers to play with them but that would the strongest the Habs would be down the middle in a long long long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 14 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said: I would rather keep Caufield. Keep Caufield and Pettersson on different line as they’re both goal scorers. In theory it should spread out scoring and give Caufield easier opponents. I don’t think Guhle and Caufield for Pettersson is a fair trade. Vancouver would definitely have to sweeten the pot some to get that to work. You think VAN would have to add something of value along with Pettersson? 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.