Jump to content

Permanent Trade Proposal Thread


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

I knew the 9th was in there which is why I said trade down from a top-5 pick, not trade out of the round entirely.

If a team is dealing away a top-5 pick, they need a core piece coming back. Alexei Emelin is not a core piece. He's not even close to one. To be a core piece, you need to be talented, cost-effective, and have several years of team control. Emelin's not that talented, is expensive relative to his role (even with your proposal to retain a bit), and has just two years left so he's not under team control for long.

If I'm the Oilers, why am I giving up a shot at a first line forward or top pairing d-man at the #4 pick to get a short-term 3rd pairing upgrade while dropping enough in the first round to take me out of that first line/top pairing D territory at #9? (Plus a mid-2nd round pick, yes.) Wouldn't they rather sign a $3.5-$4 M d-man in free agency and keep the #4 pick? They get someone around Emelin's calibre and a top-5 prospect that way.

Should the Habs trade back 5 or 6 spots in the 1st round to pick up an overpaid 3rd line forward that's signed for a couple more years while adding a mid-2nd in the process? That doesn't seem like an ideal use of cap space not to mention losing the better prospect in the pick swap. That's basically what you're suggesting Edmonton should want to do.

I'm basically just trying to find ways to shed salary without taking any back, which is difficult obviously. Still, I feel like far more lopsided trades have occurred. The gudbrason trade that happened just yesterday was pretty lopsided of you ask me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm basically just trying to find ways to shed salary without taking any back, which is difficult obviously. Still, I feel like far more lopsided trades have occurred. The gudbrason trade that happened just yesterday was pretty lopsided of you ask me

It may be easier this offseason to try to move a couple of 4th liners to save a couple million than to try to deal a bigger ticket player without taking salary back (or retaining much). Teams aren't going to be moving their top picks now unless it's a key player that can help for quite a few years (plus getting a 1st rounder a few spots later, of course).

As for yesterday's trade, I'm not sure what Vancouver was thinking there. They must be pushing to win now before the Sedins retire; I can't really think of much justification otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for yesterday's trade, I'm not sure what Vancouver was thinking there. They must be pushing to win now before the Sedins retire; I can't really think of much justification otherwise.

I think they were happy to let Mccann go because they know they can draft a better forward in a few weeks. Also the fan base in Vancouver is very fickle so they get a d-man that can play now instead of waiting for a prospect to develop and the team should stay a bit more competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just cause you can draft a better forward in a few weeks doesn't mean you do this trade.

You gave up a top prospect, the 33rd overall pick, and downgraded a high 4th to a late 5th all to get a defenceman who is big, but can't skate and can't pass, and is terrible in possession.

Jim Benning is the reincarnation of Mike Milbury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they were happy to let Mccann go because they know they can draft a better forward in a few weeks. Also the fan base in Vancouver is very fickle so they get a d-man that can play now instead of waiting for a prospect to develop and the team should stay a bit more competitive.

They could have drafted a better forward and kept McCann, though. Vancouver has now quietly moved away two of their recent first rounders in McCann/Shinkaruk (who they practically gave away). They don't exactly have a deep prospect pool as it is up front. Personally, I think they'd have been better off keeping McCann and signing a free agent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had a lot of depth at C. Unless you see McCann as a possible #1C to replace Sedin in 2-3 years, trading him for help on the blueline - where the organization is downright desperate - made sense in principle. Whether the guy from Florida is anything other than Mike Komisarek is another question. If he isn't, then this is indeed a Reggie Houle-calibre move that reinforces the suspicion that Van has one of the most inept management groups in hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well the deal was expensive. Basically they get a big good defenceman who has not lived up to his potential yet and a draft pick that has not a huge chance of playing in the nhl. They give up a good young forward with a low cap hit and 2 draft choices, one of which has a good shot at playing in the nhl. The other might. All in all I think VAN loses this trade big time, Florida comes out way ahead. Can we The Oilers to make that kind of deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had a lot of depth at C. Unless you see McCann as a possible #1C to replace Sedin in 2-3 years, trading him for help on the blueline - where the organization is downright desperate - made sense in principle. Whether the guy from Florida is anything other than Mike Komisarek is another question. If he isn't, then this is indeed a Reggie Houle-calibre move that reinforces the suspicion that Van has one of the most inept management groups in hockey.

I honestly wouldn't have traded the 33rd overall pick straight up for Erik Gudbranson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oilers not long ago gave up the 16th and 33rd pick for Griffin freakin Reinhart. I feel like chirelli is a fan of these physical d men, that was just my thought when I proposed the trade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oilers not long ago gave up the 16th and 33rd pick for Griffin freakin Reinhart. I feel like chirelli is a fan of these physical d men, that was just my thought when I proposed the trade

And I for one hope you absolutely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oilers not long ago gave up the 16th and 33rd pick for Griffin freakin Reinhart. I feel like chirelli is a fan of these physical d men, that was just my thought when I proposed the trade

While that was also a dumb deal, that better fit the criteria for a core player from Edmonton's perspective:

Talented: Not at the time but the perceived upside was still there (still might be in their eyes).

Cost-effective: Was (and still is heading into next year) on his ELC so check.

Team control: 6 years away from UFA at the time of the deal, check.

As much as that wasn't a good move for them, it's a lot more defensible than dropping down from a top-5 spot to secure the services of a third pairing defenceman and a mid second round pick when you can easily acquire a comparable defenceman in free agency. Reinhart could still be a core guy (doubtful in my opinion but you never know); Emelin is what he is at this point, he's not magically going to turn into a high-level D at age 30. If you're trading away (or down) first round picks, teams should want players with upside that could be part of a long-term core. Reinhart better meets that than Emelin does.

I understand the logic behind Emelin and Edmonton. The Oilers could reasonably offer a lot less and still get him though. If Montreal wants to move him as a cap dump without taking salary back, a 3rd round pick probably gets it done. That's much more palatable to them than trading down from the #4 spot to get him. From Montreal's standpoint, if you're trying to free up cap space, you're not going to get a great return because there will be a lot of other teams trying to do the same thing (unless you're dealing a higher-end player). If one doesn't want to take the lower return to get their cap room, chances are, someone else will. Cap space is the more valuable asset they'll get compared to the actual asset changing hands when it comes to dealing away secondary players like Emelin or other middle-lower tier guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that enjoy slideshows and P.K. Subban proposals, here is a listing of trade proposals from (pretty much) every NHL team: http://www.sportingnews.com/nhl/list/pk-subban-trade-rumors-contract-canadiens/1v07cfolzrh4t11ik506mrr5zi

Lots of them are lousy, a few laughable, but there are a couple that would probably be in the ballpark if they ever were to make him available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The June 1st signing deadline for draft prospects (CHL picks in 2014 basically) is fast approacing and it's a better list than usual this year:

2l8ww2w.jpg

A lot of these players will re-enter the draft (the odd one will become a UFA) if unsigned so most teams will be willing to move them for a late round pick or other unsigned prospect to get something for them. Montreal has picked up a couple of players in this situation in the past. Is there anyone on here you think the Habs should dangle a late round pick for?

(Bleackley is worth a 2nd round pick to Arizona if he goes unsigned so no, they're not dealing him away for a late rounder.)

A few that catch my eye:

Reid Duke (Big postseason with Brandon, it's believed a few teams have expressed a trade interest already)

Matt Mistele (2 straight 30+ goal seasons in the OHL, played with McCarron in Oshawa's Memorial Cup run)

Ryan Rehill (Big blueliner with some grit and had a breakout offensive season)

Alexis Vanier (6'5 left shot blueliner with a bit of offensive skill - a bit injury prone though)

Vanier and Mistele in particular are ones I'd be comfortable with Bergevin trading a late round pick for. Perhaps even more ideal would be dealing someone like Thrower just to match a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bleackley goes unsigned, does he re-enter the draft or become UFA? If he re-enters the draft where would he likely be picked? Any particular reason he has not signed yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Connor Chatham had some hype on him at draft. No idea how he looks now.

He hasn't lived up to it. He was picked as one of those 'hope for the best' powerforward types but the offence just wasn't there in junior. He's the type of guy that will get a tryout for an AHL deal next year.

If Bleackley goes unsigned, does he re-enter the draft or become UFA? If he re-enters the draft where would he likely be picked? Any particular reason he has not signed yet?

I believe he re-enters. I don't think he'll go anywhere near as high this time around though as the projection on him has really changed since he was picked. I think he'd be in back half of the draft now. Any earlier and someone would deal their 2nd for him. He was projected as a third liner with some offensive upside but he hasn't produced enough in junior to maintain that ceiling. Colorado wound up firing their head scout not that long after Bleackley was their pick and the sense quickly became that they didn't want to sign him. They moved him to Arizona in the Boedker deal in lieu of parting with one of their own 2nd round picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do you guys think, would it be worth it / possible to trade Juulsen and the 9th pick for the 4th pick? or are we just as well of keeping Juulsen and the 9th pick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do you guys think, would it be worth it / possible to trade Juulsen and the 9th pick for the 4th pick? or are we just as well of keeping Juulsen and the 9th pick?

I wouldn't from Montreal's perspective and I don't think Edmonton does either. If the Oilers trade the pick for a d-man, I think they'll want someone ready now or close to it and Juulsen is a few years away.

Montreal's defensive depth is really, really, really weak and that's with Juulsen (you'll see that in the next Assessing the Depth piece later this week). Take him out of the equation plus the #9 pick to get a forward at #4 and they have pretty much no one of consequence in the system at either the AHL or junior/college levels. (Bourque and Lernout are decent prospects but probably won't be impact d-men in the NHL.) That means the Habs are signing themselves up to have next to no help coming for the back end for 4-5 years unless they get really lucky on a pick later in this draft or go after a pricey free agent on the blueline.

I must admit, I'm also not as high on Dubois as many are so that factors in to my hesitance to do this proposal. I don't think there's a massive gap between him and a forward that will likely be available at #9, certainly not enough to justify more or less crippling themselves in terms of their defensive pipeline.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also not real fan of Dubois to the Habs and for sure not keen on trading up to get him...but trade up for Tkachuk at 4 seems more tempting. But, even then I don't think Jost/Keller would be a huge downgrade and who knows, maybe Tkachuk wouldn't be the same without top notch linemates a la Sam Gagne/S. Kostitsyn with no Pat Kane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...