Proposal: H. Fleury To Montreal

[tarheelhockey]

OK, I agree with you. But let's take this one step further. As fake GMs, we can't get caught in a bad situation, so we have to think this all the way through. Knowing what we know about the players involved (Bean, Fleury, Sellgren), and our team needs, what's *likely* to happen?

Given our depth and players coming on the left side and how they fit team needs, it seems likely that Fleury will eventually face the chopping block here. If that's the case, isn't it better to get out in front of it instead of being backed into a corner down the road?

I think @Anton Dubinchuk summarized my thoughts pretty well below — I’d want to start the season with him in the press box and get closer to the brink before making a decision, because I don’t think there’s a lot of trade value at risk — but there are two huge factors behind the curtain that I can’t see from my GM armchair:

1) What’s on the table in a trade? We’re assuming it’s a token draft pick, which is fair from our side of the curtain. But if someone comes in with a serious offer (say a low 1st and there’s someone we want still on the board) then naturally I’m not going to be mad about that.

2) How is CDH and especially TVR holding up after surgery? I would want to at least see them in camp/preseason first, unless an offer forces my hand. A healthy TVR and a broken down TVR leave us in two very different places, and for the time being Fleury is the only ace we have in the hole. It’s just impossible to know how that factor plays out, for now.

The good news is that we’re still in a position where time is on our side. We can monitor the surgeries and Checkers and draft board, and make a decision when it suits us. As long as we don’t end up taking future considerations to avoid a waiver claim, it won’t be a total fail.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

It'd be the same thing in Edmonton by the way. If Puljujarvi starts the year in Edmonton and puts up .5 PPG (even next to McDavid), he'd net them way more than if they traded him right now. Fleury's in the same boat, and when the difference between "getting ahead of a logjam" and seeing how this will play out is like a 3rd round pick, I'm more inclined to see how it'll play out. Even just the label "young NHL defenseman" vs. "NHL/AHL tweener" can significantly change the way he's viewed around the league, and recoup some value fairly quickly.

This is precisely why, to me, this is the kind of deal that makes most sense. Trade like-for-like in areas of need. Pulju-Fleury seems like the best option out there.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

It’s also nice to keep in mind that if we take away draft pedigree, Fleury really doesn’t do much for anyone to think he’s going to be more than a bottom pairing guy. He doesn’t really possess a given elite skill that makes you say “boy if he figures it out he could really be dominant as an [X].” He’s a good bottom pairing guy if he hits his ceiling.

It may be useful to think of him as at the top of a group containing him, McKeown, and Carrick, then think of guys like Bean and Sellgren separately. More proven, lower ceiling guys who wouldn’t be out of place on the bottom pairing or in the press box, vs. actual prospects with more significant ceiling still to give or lose.

 

[A Star is Burns]

It's also important to keep in mind that Fleury isn't the only insurance against an injury, or even our other guys like McKeown and Carrick. We can probably find a relatively competent veteran 6-7 type somewhere for relatively cheap. Might even be a better option than Fleury if we need them to play for a month or two to start the season.