hab29RETIRED Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said: my feeling too. Guhle needs to bulk up a bit, but otherwise is a fine top-4 D. I don't like Zegras, reminds me too much of the type of player Drouin was with the Habs (not the one he is with the Avs). Agree on the Drouin comparison as a risk. I wouldn't mind going after Zegras, just not at that price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan89 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 30 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: Agree on the Drouin comparison as a risk. I wouldn't mind going after Zegras, just not at that price. You’re forgetting about moving up to 3rd so we cam draft one of Demidrov or Lindstrom or Levshunov. At 5 I don’t see us getting any unless someone goes off the board and one of these guys falls to us at 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 36 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: Well I don't see Anaheim asking for Anderson or Gallagher for Zegras. They are going to ask a lot. Question is, how many teams are going to pay a lot when a rebuilding team is willing to give up in a 23 year old? who would you value more, a 60 point dman, or a 60 point centre? I'll pick the 60 point dman every time. I don't want to love Matheson, but if we get a high top 10 pick for him, I'd rather get another pick to try and get Iginla or Sennecke with that pick, rather then move Guhle for Zegras. You're not looking at why they are giving up a 23 year old center and setting his value with that. They have 2 younger centers with an, arguably higher ceiling. Why wait to bolster their young defense and build a team together if possible. Of course you'd pick a 60 points defenseman every time, but we're not talking about a 60 point defenseman, so that point is moot. We're talking about a 20-30 point defenseman vs a 60 point center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 50 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: ... other assets like Savard, Armia (either, or both with retention as a sweetner) ... Point taken ... but Habs only have one retention slot remaining ... Petry an Allen filling the other two this season ... back to three next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, Habsfan89 said: You’re forgetting about moving up to 3rd so we cam draft one of Demidrov or Lindstrom or Levshunov. At 5 I don’t see us getting any unless someone goes off the board and one of these guys falls to us at 5. That depends on your priority of who you think it's worth moving up for. I'm not really willing to give up assets to draft a D, unless it's a clear cut Makar or better type of dman. Lots off options on D, with no clear Dman identified as being head and shoulders above others. With Lindstrom, I'm nervous of even drafting him at 5. Herniated disc is scary, because it could become a chronic issue. I'd want to be 99.9% sure there are no risks with taking him. If we got a 2nd pick, between 6-12, and he is available, I'd be willing to roll the dice, after already getting a major piece with our own #5. Demidov is the only player I'd be willing to give up something to move up for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, TurdBurglar said: You're not looking at why they are giving up a 23 year old center and setting his value with that. They have 2 younger centers with an, arguably higher ceiling. Why wait to bolster their young defense and build a team together if possible. Of course you'd pick a 60 points defenseman every time, but we're not talking about a 60 point defenseman, so that point is moot. We're talking about a 20-30 point defenseman vs a 60 point center. I'm saying if they want a D, I'd rather move Matheson than Zegras - I think he has more value than Zegras - especially given his contract. but the id want more in return for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, GHT120 said: Point taken ... but Habs only have one retention slot remaining ... Petry an Allen filling the other two this season ... back to three next season. Damn. forgot about Allen. Wel, cam move one with retention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 17 hours ago, TurdBurglar said: We're talking about a 20-30 point defenseman vs a 60 point center. Guhle- 29pts/82 in his 1st 2 yrs and am guessing that rate will increase a bit. So i would say more a 30-40pt d-man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 2 hours ago, DON said: Guhle- 29pts/82 in his 1st 2 yrs and am guessing that rate will increase a bit. So i would say more a 30-40pt d-man. I would agree, I think Guhle tops out in the 35 point range but his value will be more as a shutdown defensemen. I expect Mailloux and Hutson to supply most of the offense from the back end in the long term. Not ignoring Matheson, just not sure how long he will be here, could be a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 53 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: I would agree, I think Guhle tops out in the 35 point range but his value will be more as a shutdown defensemen. I expect Mailloux and Hutson to supply most of the offense from the back end in the long term. Not ignoring Matheson, just not sure how long he will be here, could be a few years. Depending on the development of the young defense, Matheson could be gone as early as next off-season, when he will be in the final year of his deal. I would be shocked if he goes by the deadline this year. There's also a good possibility he re-signs as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Would the following deal be enough for us to get Anaheim's pick (I'd only want to do this if Chicago somehow passes on Demidov: Matheson + #5 for Zegras+#3 i wouldn't move Matheson straight up for Zegras, but would be willing to move hi if it allows us to get Demidov. Anaheim is not the natural landing spot for Matheson, but I do think having a minute munching top dman can help them in the short term, and they can probably easily move Matheson later in the year, or next year for a 1st+. I think Matheson is actually worth more than Zegras based on their performance to date AND even moreso, when you factor in their contracts. If Anaheim doesn't want to go for that, potential teams I think Matheson could bring a top 10, are NJD and the Sens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Whats the point of having Zegras and Demidov, but having a defence group that now needs someone who can play 20+ minutes a game and insult the young group while they grow? Also the more we hear things, the more I think that Demidov is going to fall to 5, and if he doesn't it's cause Chicago so the trade doesn't help anyways. I keep hearing Levshunov to Chicago, Silayev to Anaheim, Lindstrom to Columbus and Demidov to Montreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 1 hour ago, Commandant said: Whats the point of having Zegras and Demidov, but having a defence group that now needs someone who can play 20+ minutes a game and insult the young group while they grow? Also the more we hear things, the more I think that Demidov is going to fall to 5, and if he doesn't it's cause Chicago so the trade doesn't help anyways. I keep hearing Levshunov to Chicago, Silayev to Anaheim, Lindstrom to Columbus and Demidov to Montreal. I hope that's how it shakes down, but I I I still think Chicago and Columbus may go with Demidov. The big local on him were size and the Russian factor. He looks to be close to 6-1, not the previously route range of 5-10, and with Michkov coming over next year, I think that's going to make teams less hesitant. with Chicago, I don't see how they can't go with a guy that may give them the next Kane-Toews type of duo. as far as why we would want both Demidov and Zegras. if Dach is healthy, we need to put him in a position to succeed by giving him a highly skilled player as a linemate - without having to break up our top line. The soonest that Demidov would come over is September 2025. We need someone for Dach now. If Roy takes a big step forward, we could have a solid second line of Zegras-Dach-Roy, and another solid third line with Newhook. That would be a huge improvement up front. Losing Matheson would be a higher short term loss, but there are UFA options for us on short deals. We have D in the pipeline for the future, we don't have anyone other than Roy, and potentially Newhook, with top 6 potential on a WINNING team. We have Beck and Kapanan as great 3rd line prospects, but we don't have legit top 6 prospects. there are UFA that aren't as good as Matheson, but can be a bridge to buy as time while our D develop. I don't see us being a playoff team until 2025-26 at the earliest, and if all are prospects progress as we hope, a legit playoff team by 2026-27 - but that's not going to happen until we get some good to elite forward prospects to complement what we have in the pipeline on D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Yeah, I'm not buying the idea that giving up your #1 defenceman for 2nd Line Winger to play with Dach is a great idea, and I have been advocating that said wing spot is the one biggest need. But creating a hole to fill that doesn't seem smart to me. As for some other questions... why would Chicago pass on that duo? To get their Duncan Keith on defence is why. But you missed the main point.... if Chicago does take Demidov, then trading up to 3 with Anaheim is pointless, cause you aren't getting Demidov anyway, and Anaheim is highly likely to take a young defencemen so why do we need to jump Columbus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 15 minutes ago, Commandant said: Yeah, I'm not buying the idea that giving up your #1 defenceman for 2nd Line Winger to play with Dach is a great idea, and I have been advocating that said wing spot is the one biggest need. But creating a hole to fill that doesn't seem smart to me. As for some other questions... why would Chicago pass on that duo? To get their Duncan Keith on defence is why. But you missed the main point.... if Chicago does take Demidov, then trading up to 3 with Anaheim is pointless, cause you aren't getting Demidov anyway, and Anaheim is highly likely to take a young defencemen so why do we need to jump Columbus? If you read the original post, I had said that I'd only want to make this deal if Chicago passed on Demidov, because I think there is a good chance that Columbus takes Demidov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 To Montreal: Rutger McGroarty (assuming he would sign) Nate Schmidt (1y @ $5.95M), 50% retained To Winnipeg: LHD not named Matheson, Guhle or Hutson Does that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 5 minutes ago, tomh009 said: To Montreal: Rutger McGroarty (assuming he would sign) Nate Schmidt (1y @ $5.95M), 50% retained To Winnipeg: LHD not named Matheson, Guhle or Hutson Does that work? Seems light for Winnipeg. I know the cap dump is in there which is important but I don't think they want to dump their top prospect to open up cap space. Something like Barron/Dvorak/FLA 1st 25 for McGroarty/Schmidt comes to mind, giving them a return that helps now, a future asset in the 1st, and around $1.5M in cap room. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 15 minutes ago, dlbalr said: Something like Barron/Dvorak/FLA 1st 25 for McGroarty/Schmidt comes to mind, giving them a return that helps now, a future asset in the 1st, and around $1.5M in cap room. Love it ... ideally the 2025 CAL/FLA pick* lottery, or at least top 12, protected ... and @ $2.975M they might even be able to flip Schmidt before net season. * - Strange things CAN happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Proposal 1: Harris and the CGY Pick for Rutger McGroarty. Proposal 2: Anderson for Laine.... 1 for 1 no retention either team. Proposal 3: Struble for Laine.... 50% retained by Columbus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 12 minutes ago, Commandant said: Proposal 1: Harris and the CGY Pick for Rutger McGroarty. Interesting idea ... I like it ... obviously depends on whether Hughes' "grapevine" indicates McGroarty would sign. 14 minutes ago, Commandant said: Proposal 2: Anderson for Laine.... 1 for 1 no retention either team. Proposal 3: Struble for Laine.... 50% retained by Columbus. I would take a chance on Laine with either of those trades ... he is a risk, but one with a huge upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 26 minutes ago, Commandant said: Proposal 1: Harris and the CGY Pick for Rutger McGroarty. Proposal 2: Anderson for Laine.... 1 for 1 no retention either team. Proposal 3: Struble for Laine.... 50% retained by Columbus. I like proposal 1 from a Habs point of view. The likely issue from Winnipeg's point of view is the uncertainty of the pick. Best case scenario it might be around 12, more likely in the 20's if it's Florida's pick which is not great value for their best prospect. I am ok with 2 or 3, just not sure if Waddell is ready to trade with the Habs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 43 minutes ago, Commandant said: Proposal 1: Harris and the CGY Pick for Rutger McGroarty. Proposal 2: Anderson for Laine.... 1 for 1 no retention either team. Proposal 3: Struble for Laine.... 50% retained by Columbus. I've been for rolling the dice on Laine for a while now. I doubt if Anderson gets it done though - even with no retention. i can't see them going for #3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 47 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: I am ok with 2 or 3, just not sure if Waddell is ready to trade with the Habs. Was the issue Waddell vs Bergeron, Waddell vs Montreal, Dundon vs Bergeron or Dundon vs Montreal? I suspect that Dundon was/is the issue, not Waddell ... I also suspect that being fed up with Dundon played a large part in Waddell leaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 10 minutes ago, GHT120 said: Was the issue Waddell vs Bergeron, Waddell vs Montreal, Dundon vs Bergeron or Dundon vs Montreal? I suspect that Dundon was/is the issue, not Waddell ... I also suspect that being fed up with Dundon played a large part in Waddell leaving. We might never know what the issue actually was. Maybe Waddell has a good relationship with Hughes. It certainly could have been mainly Dundon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 50 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: I've been for rolling the dice on Laine for a while now. I doubt if Anderson gets it done though - even with no retention. i can't see them going for #3. I can't see them going for #3 either. I don't think Struble is valued enough to eat 4 million of Laine's contract for 2 years. I would do #3 in a heartbeat. Laine at 4.3 million seems like a pretty low risk move 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.