Proposal: SELL SELL SELL. Trade Proposal and Trade Deadline talk continued!

[groovejuice]

Could also be a poison pill. Deals that could have gotten done earlier, will be delayed as every seller or most of them measure their efforts relative to the haul in the Duchene deal.

And deals that are delayed could also mean dominos not falling, which usually force the hand of other suitors when they do.

I dunno, seems to me that the Duchene deal was unique and can't easily be replicated. It took a long time for Sakic to pull it off, he took a lot of heat, many said he was the worst GM for squandering Duchene's value while he was playing hardball well over the year it took for him to move him.

Other GMs acting now, won't have the luxury of time. And they may not have as scarce an asset to deal, especially one with term left on the contract. It was a confluence of events that may just not be replicated.

Oh, I agree. Only a Melnyck - Dorian duo could have paid that random for Duchene. Doesn't mean Bergevin isn't overly optimistic because of it.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Frankly, it doesn't even matter. He mishandled his negotiations with Poile. Poile was in NOW mode, Bergevin was in orbit mode. He got shortchanged.

But, this is a new mandate, let's see if he's learned anything. Apparently, he's going to do this now while trusting the same old dogs that helped him land all those chumps in the last year and a half or two.

One of those old dogs is Rick Dudley. I was looking at his past accomplishments lately, what has this guy done ? Why did MB immediately appoint him as his main advisor ?

Another thing to wonder about...

 

[ECWHSWI]

One of those old dogs is Rick Dudley. I was looking at his past accomplishments lately, what has this guy done ? Why did MB immediately appoint him as his main advisor ?

Another thing to wonder about...

if we go by reputation alone, Weber was worth A LOT more than Subban was at the time, any of the two (Dudley and MB) should have asked themselves why in hell Poile was willing to trade the ultimate captain, top 5 D, man mountain, for Subban one on one, Preds didnt ask for an extra pick or anything, Subban alone was enough for Weber...

 

[Runner77]

One of those old dogs is Rick Dudley. I was looking at his past accomplishments lately, what has this guy done ? Why did MB immediately appoint him as his main advisor ?

Another thing to wonder about...

Dudley is well-plugged but it's high time to have his scalp.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

if we go by reputation alone, Weber was worth A LOT more than Subban was at the time, any of the two (Dudley and MB) should have asked themselves why in hell Poile was willing to trade the ultimate captain, top 5 D, man mountain, for Subban one on one, Preds didnt ask for an extra pick or anything, Subban alone was enough for Weber...

In a parallel universe, where this trade was done for the right reasons in the right context, it could have been a good trade. But you can't afford to replace Subban's offense with Weber's defense*, and then not improve the center line, let Radulov go, lose another puck mover in Markov without replacing him. If Weber hadn't gotten injured, and we had kept Emelin, Markov and Radulov, not signed Crapner, Crapko and Craprow while adding Drouin, this season would have looked a lot different. Everyone would have instantly looked better. You can argue Subban would have been even better with such a team than Weber, but if you look at last season before Kopitar knee'd Galchenyuk and before the team tuned out Therrien and decided they had had enough, we were looking good. We were just missing a couple weapons up front. If we had added Drouin this summer while leaving the rest unchanged from 2016-17, we would be in the playoffs right now, and we would be in a position to make a deadline deal to improve the center line (yeah I know...... I guess I'm an eternal optimist).

*I know people will say Subban is better defensively than Weber but IMO that's a load of crap. Weber gets shortchanged big time by habs fans who are mad at losing Subban. I get it, he was my favourite player since Koivu, actually liked him more than Koivu even. But Weber is simply superior defensively regardless of dumb corsi BS.

 

[ECWHSWI]

In a parallel universe, where this trade was done for the right reasons in the right context, it could have been a good trade. But you can't afford to replace Subban's offense with Weber's defense*, and then not improve the center line, let Radulov go, lose another puck mover in Markov without replacing him. If Weber hadn't gotten injured, and we had kept Emelin, Markov and Radulov, not signed Crapner, Crapko and Craprow while adding Drouin, this season would have looked a lot different. Everyone would have instantly looked better. You can argue Subban would have been even better with such a team than Weber, but if you look at last season before Kopitar knee'd Galchenyuk and before the team tuned out Therrien and decided they had had enough, we were looking good. We were just missing a couple weapons up front. If we had added Drouin this summer while leaving the rest unchanged from 2016-17, we would be in the playoffs right now, and we would be in a position to make a deadline deal to improve the center line (yeah I know...... I guess I'm an eternal optimist).

*I know people will say Subban is better defensively than Weber but IMO that's a load of crap. Weber gets shortchanged big time by habs fans who are mad at losing Subban. I get it, he was my favourite player since Koivu, actually liked him more than Koivu even. But Weber is simply superior defensively regardless of dumb corsi BS.

what's after the bolded is also a load of crap, as strange as it may sound, some people are a fan of neither player, and some people REALLY think Subban is better.

No need to dumb down the thread with stuff like this.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

what's after the bolded is also a load of crap, as strange as it may sound, some people are a fan of neither player, and some people REALLY think Subban is better.

I don't have a problem with people having different opinions, whether they are based on their love of Subban/hate of Weber or for 100% rational reasons.

EDIT:

You made me think about it... I just wanted to add this.

It's undeniable that some people hate the trade for emotional reasons. Which I don't have a problem with. We're fans. It's normal to be emotional about the team. We're not robots, and it's not a badge of honor to claim to be perfectly rational about everything on the team IMO. Like you can find that the trade is roughly even, but emotional attachment to Subban makes you hate the trade. There's nothing wrong with that.

As for people who have rational reasons, even those people, can have their judgement colored a little bit by their emotions. But even if they're perfectly rational about it, I find a lot of the people who hate the trade hate it because of shot based stats. I personally think most of the shot based stats are to be used with the utmost caution and not for players you have actually watched with your own two eyes, just for players you don't know, but that's just me.

If you happen to not fall in any categories I just named above, then you don't have to wear that hat. I don't claim EVERYONE must fit into that picture. I know it's not the case.

No need to dumb down the thread with stuff like this.

 

[417]

If that's the case, then ...

RIP Charlie Murphy.

Interesting comments from Kypreos...I would hope that's the ask for Pacioretty, doesn't mean they'll get it, but why shouldn't the price be high?

I've been adamant that there's no way they should move Pacioretty without getting back a young NHL player who can play now + top prospect + 1st round pick.

That's the bare minimum imo, the Habs are in no rush to move Pacioretty....if the best they can do right now is a top prospect + 1st, might as well wait til next trade deadline, you'll get the same for him a rental.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

RIP Charlie Murphy.

Interesting comments from Kypreos...I would hope that's the ask for Pacioretty, doesn't mean they'll get it, but why shouldn't the price be high?

I've been adamant that there's no way they should move Pacioretty without getting back a young NHL player who can play now + top prospect + 1st round pick.

That's the bare minimum imo, the Habs are in no rush to move Pacioretty....if the best they can do right now is a top prospect + 1st, might as well wait til next trade deadline, you'll get the same for him a rental.

Personally I think the best value Patch can have is right now. Teams always get crazy at the deadline and are often ready to overpay to give their team the push needed to win it all. Now you consider that the habs can retain salary, accept bad salary in return, and Patch has another year left at a discount after? Patch will be at his highest possible value from now until deadline. It will not get better. But you need to forget about getting a NHLer in a deadline deal because teams making a push for it aren't going to give you someone who can play in the playoffs this year. It would be counterproductive. I would personally want a can't miss top notch prospect expected to debut in the NHL next season + a decent prospect + 1st + 2nd assuming we retain as much as possible on Patch's salary, and we can even accept a bad deal in return (no longer than 1-2 years). I don't know if you consider all the teams pushing for a cup who has that kind of package to offer. It's entirely possible that a good offer will not materialize despite the fact Patch's value is at its highest right now. This summer, you can realize your wish of getting a warm body. But IMO, it's the wrong trade to make. Your warm body is only going to devalue the rest of the assets you will get. Unless your warm body is the center piece of the deal and a super young promising player but what teams would want to do this for Pacioretty ? If it's a young can't miss guy who has already played in the NHL and is about to breakout, they won't want to give a prime asset like that for a guy with one year left.

 

[417]

Personally I think the best value Patch can have is right now. Teams always get crazy at the deadline and are often ready to overpay to give their team the push needed to win it all. Now you consider that the habs can retain salary, accept bad salary in return, and Patch has another year left at a discount after? Patch will be at his highest possible value from now until deadline. It will not get better. But you need to forget about getting a NHLer in a deadline deal because teams making a push for it aren't going to give you someone who can play in the playoffs this year. It would be counterproductive. I would personally want a can't miss top notch prospect expected to debut in the NHL next season + a decent prospect + 1st + 2nd assuming we retain as much as possible on Patch's salary, and we can even accept a bad deal in return (no longer than 1-2 years). I don't know if you consider all the teams pushing for a cup who has that kind of package to offer. It's entirely possible that a good offer will not materialize despite the fact Patch's value is at its highest right now. This summer, you can realize your wish of getting a warm body. But IMO, it's the wrong trade to make. Your warm body is only going to devalue the rest of the assets you will get. Unless your warm body is the center piece of the deal and a super young promising player but what teams would want to do this for Pacioretty ? If it's a young can't miss guy who has already played in the NHL and is about to breakout, they won't want to give a prime asset like that for a guy with one year left.

I think we're talking about the same thing...for me, that "decent prospect" you're referring too is a young player whose currently playing in the NHL (but not necessarily essential to the team he's on) or who is in the AHL but ready to play in the NHL (think of another team's version of Scherbak/Juulsen).

We're talking about the same type of package

 

[Kwikwi]

Keep in mind, we want: 1st, 2nd , rooster player, decent prospect

because next year the team will be able to get: 1st and decent prospect for him.

So MB doesnt want to give him free.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I think we're talking about the same thing...for me, that "decent prospect" you're referring too is a young player whose currently playing in the NHL (but not necessarily essential to the team he's on) or who is in the AHL but ready to play in the NHL (think of another team's version of Scherbak/Juulsen).

We're talking about the same type of package

You pay for certainty with less perceived upside. No one's going to trade you an NHL ready prospect and a bunch of stuff unless that bunch of stuff is either paying you to accept risk, or an inferior player.

 

[417]

You pay for certainty with less perceived upside. No one's going to trade you an NHL ready prospect and a bunch of stuff unless that bunch of stuff is either paying you to accept risk, or an inferior player.

Can you elaborate?

If what you're saying is that's asking for too much, I disagree entirely.

Pacioretty is not a rental, he's a proven/productive goal scorer, with an affordable contract.

There's a premium teams should have to pay to acquire him. You can't trade Pacioretty for parts that may not even be in the NHL for another 2yrs, never mind make it at all.

PacioePaci SHOULD return some 'now' and some ''tomorrow".

He's our best asset, makes no sense to trade him at a discount, for what?

 

[McGuires Corndog]

Keep in mind, we want: 1st, 2nd , rooster player, decent prospect

because next year the team will be able to get: 1st and decent prospect for him.

So MB doesnt want to give him free.

We definitely need to make sure we get that rooster player back. We can’t be chickens about this!

 

[NotProkofievian]

Can you elaborate?

If what you're saying is that's asking for too much, I disagree entirely.

Pacioretty is not a rental, he's a proven/productive goal scorer, with an affordable contract.

There's a premium teams should have to pay to acquire him.

I'm saying that if you want someone who's already playing in the NHL, the kind of player that will be made available to you will be different than if you would accept a prospect who is earlier along in their development curve. For example, it's at least conceivable that you could get back Vilardi and a bunch of other stuff for Pacioretty. Vilardi has an extreme amount of talent, but he's also not made it yet, and has some skating concerns. They're paying you the extra to accept the risk that he doesn't pan out. You're paying them a more established player for the chance that Vilardi explodes and becomes a star in the league.

If you want an established player who, at least, will play in the NHL, no one is going to pay you a prospect + a bunch of other stuff if they believe that prospect has extremely high potential. All of a sudden, Vilardi becomes more like Eriksson Ek. The only way we win in this scenario is if the other team is wrong about the potential of their prospect.

 

[417]

I'm saying that if you want someone who's already playing in the NHL, the kind of player that will be made available to you will be different than if you would accept a prospect who is earlier along in their development curve. For example, it's at least conceivable that you could get back Vilardi and a bunch of other stuff for Pacioretty. Vilardi has an extreme amount of talent, but he's also not made it yet, and has some skating concerns. They're paying you the extra to accept the risk that he doesn't pan out. You're paying them a more established player for the chance that Vilardi explodes and becomes a star in the league.

Paying you extra with what?

More elements that may not pan out (1st round pick)?

I don't see how that makes the risk any more palatable. Just as Pacioretty is a guaranteed return for them, with the added bonuses of being on a sweet contract for another year, the Kings HAVE to pay a premium for that fact alone IMO.

Next year, when he's a pending UFA...the deal you're referring too makes more sense imo.

Ifyou want an established player who, at least, will play in the NHL, no one is going to pay you a prospect + a bunch of other stuff if they believe that prospect has extremely high potential.

It depends what you mean by "established player".

I'm not talking about Tyler Toffoli here, but a young player just starting out or pushing in the AHL, seems appropriate for me. I don't think that's asking too much or gutting the Kings from their current roster.

The Kings have up Martin Jones (established NHL'er) + Colin Miller (decent prosoect) + 1st round pick for Milan Lucic.

If they want Pacioretty, who is a better player than Lucic, it's going to cost more.

All of a sudden, Vilardi becomes more like Eriksson Ek. The only way we win in this scenario is if the other team is wrong about the potential of their prospect.

What tells you that Vilardi is a better prospect than Eriksson Ek?

Unless we're talking blue chip can't miss prospects...I don't put a whole lot of value in prospects producing points in their draft year +1.

I mean, they are 1st round picks, it's to be expected...it's a whole different story to produce at the pro level.

 

[yianik]

I'm saying that if you want someone who's already playing in the NHL, the kind of player that will be made available to you will be different than if you would accept a prospect who is earlier along in their development curve. For example, it's at least conceivable that you could get back Vilardi and a bunch of other stuff for Pacioretty. Vilardi has an extreme amount of talent, but he's also not made it yet, and has some skating concerns. They're paying you the extra to accept the risk that he doesn't pan out. You're paying them a more established player for the chance that Vilardi explodes and becomes a star in the league.

If you want an established player who, at least, will play in the NHL, no one is going to pay you a prospect + a bunch of other stuff if they believe that prospect has extremely high potential. All of a sudden, Vilardi becomes more like Eriksson Ek. The only way we win in this scenario is if the other team is wrong about the potential of their prospect.

And that's how it works. We have seen a dozen target prospects including guys like Vilardi, Thomas, Roslovic , Chytil etc.

Every one of those prospects fan bases have the player as borderline untouchable because that player will be a no.1 or at least no.2 centre. But reality is out of the dozen maybe one guy , maybe , turns into a really true no.1 centre, then a couple no.2s , a few will be maybe top 6 wingers or a 3C , and the rest either bust or are bottom 6 players.

Our own fan base gets over the top at the idea of getting one of these guys. But to me none of them are any better than our own guy Poehling, who himself is only a chance at a no.2 eeeecentre. None of these guys are blue chip prospects, just good prospects and all they help us do is build a pool of decent centre prospects and hopefully one dart sticks.

Or maybe we get a guy like Jankowsi who has NHL time in.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Paying you extra with what?

More elements that may not pan out (1st round pick)?

I don't see how that makes the risk any more palatable. Just as Pacioretty is a guaranteed return for them, with the added bonuses of being on a sweet contract for another year, the Kings HAVE to pay a premium for that fact alone IMO.

Next year, when he's a pending UFA...the deal you're referring too makes more sense imo.

They would be. Please don't act as if Vilardi + 1st + is chump change.

What tells you that Vilardi is a better prospect than Eriksson Ek?

Unless we're talking blue chip can't miss prospects...I don't put a whole lot of value in prospects producing points in their draft year +1.

I mean, they are 1st round picks, it's to be expected...it's a whole different story to produce at the pro level.

What tells me that Vilardi has higher upside than Eriksson Ek, you mean? My eyes and brain. At one point, maybe the sky was the limit for Joel. It's not, now. He's a good player, but Minnesota and the rest of the world have a pretty good idea of his upside. The possibility that he'll explode into a major offensive star is quite remote. If it weren't remote, they'd just hold on to him. For Vilardi, however, he absolutely could become an offensive star. There's a chance he could totally bust though. That's why they'd have to pay the 1st+. If he weren't going to be a bust, and still had all of his upside, well, you just won't be able to trade Patches for him.

If you want the highest upside for the return on Pacioretty possible, you have to accept some risk. There's no other way.

 

[theghost1]

Bergevin needs to move Shaw and Alzner.....the best fit for Alzner i think is the Islanders he could be used to play with RHD Ryan Pulock and the Islanders have 3 impending UFA d-men....De Haan,Hickey,Seidenberg and they will have a ton of cap space and Montreal could take a contract back like Greiss and then either trade him,send him to Europe or buy him out.

 

[Habsawce]

We're stuck with Alzner. He's terrible and no one will want him for free.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

They would be. Please don't act as if Vilardi + 1st + is chump change.



What tells me that Vilardi has higher upside than Eriksson Ek, you mean? My eyes and brain. At one point, maybe the sky was the limit for Joel. It's not, now. He's a good player, but Minnesota and the rest of the world have a pretty good idea of his upside. The possibility that he'll explode into a major offensive star is quite remote. If it weren't remote, they'd just hold on to him. For Vilardi, however, he absolutely could become an offensive star. There's a chance he could totally bust though. That's why they'd have to pay the 1st+. If he weren't going to be a bust, and still had all of his upside, well, you just won't be able to trade Patches for him.

If you want the highest upside for the return on Pacioretty possible, you have to accept some risk. There's no other way.

That's what 417 doesn't seem to understand.

I personally want us to hit a homerun with Patch. We need a core piece to build around. No one will give a surefire core piece for Patch. They will a guy who could maybe become it. It's the basis for every Nieuwendyk for Iginla, Turris for Girard deals ever made. Guys like Iginla and Girard were unknown quantities at the NHL level when they were traded. I'd prefer to do that type of deal for Pacioretty than muddy up the waters with a bunch of garbage assets that will lower the quality of the one center piece of the deal we're getting back.

 

[417]

They would be. Please don't act as if Vilardi + 1st + is chump change.

What is that +?

Because Vilardi + 1st is not enough as far as I'm concerned.

What tells me that Vilardi has higher upside than Eriksson Ek, you mean? My eyes and brain. At one point, maybe the sky was the limit for Joel. It's not, now. He's a good player, but Minnesota and the rest of the world have a pretty good idea of his upside. The possibility that he'll explode into a major offensive star is quite remote. If it weren't remote, they'd just hold on to him.

Interesting conclusion you've reached here (no sarcasm). When did the candle burn out on Eriksson Ek? Because not too long ago, he was a coveted prospect...

Alot like...Gabe Vilardi.

Which kinda leads to my point about trading Pacioretty for unproven prospects. What's to tell you 1yr from now you don't feel the same about Vilardi?

Vilardi is dominating junior aged prospects, he did so last year too, there's nothing really noteworthy about that. Its to be expected, it's a whole other thing to do it at the pro level though, as evidenced by Eriksson Ek, the NHL is another step.

For Vilardi, however, he absolutely could become an offensive star. There's a chance he could totally bust though. That's why they'd have to pay the 1st+. If he weren't going to be a bust, and still had all of his upside, well, you just won't be able to trade Patches for him.

A 1st, a late one, seems like a very small consolation prize if Vilardi turns into a Joel Eriksson Ek type of prospect or worse, a bust.

If you want the highest upside for the return on Pacioretty possible, you have to accept some risk. There's no other way.

Of course there's another way...you don't trade him. The Habs are under no obligation to trade Pacioretty at a discounted price. He hasn't asked for a trade, he's not a pending UFA...

If they don't get a ransom for him, keep him.

 

[417]

That's what 417 doesn't seem to understand.

I personally want us to hit a homerun with Patch. We need a core piece to build around. No one will give a surefire core piece for Patch. They will a guy who could maybe become it. It's the basis for every Nieuwendyk for Iginla, Turris for Girard deals ever made. Guys like Iginla and Girard were unknown quantities at the NHL level when they were traded. I'd prefer to do that type of deal for Pacioretty than muddy up the waters with a bunch of garbage assets that will lower the quality of the one center piece we're getting back.

Theres nothing difficult to understand about what you or he's advancing, I understand it and I think my responses reflect that.

I don't agree with it, you two seem to think the Habs are under some obligation to trade Pacioretty for a discount.

You want to trade Pacioretty for a return that indicates Pacioretty is a UFA rental...but he's not.

Unlike you, I don't think the Habs HAVE to trade Pacioretty.

If all they can get for Pacioretty today is a top prospect +1st...may as well hold on to him and trade him at next year's deadline, they'll get the same exact return.

It is odd though, how we tend to evaluate the value of players. I've been told multiple times here (not by you) that Tomas Plekanec can be worth as high as a 1st round pick.

Yet Pacioretty is worth a top prospect + 1st...

Am I to assume that the difference in value between Plekanec and Pacioretty is 'just' a prospect?

That doesn't seem right to me. Either Plekanec's value is way overstated or Pacioretty's undervalued.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

What is that +?

Because Vilardi + 1st is not enough as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting conclusion you've reached here (no sarcasm). When did the candle burn out on Eriksson Ek? Because not too long ago, he was a coveted prospect...

Alot like...Gabe Vilardi.

Which kinda leads to my point about trading Pacioretty for unproven prospects. What's to tell you 1yr from now you don't feel the same about Vilardi?

Nothing. That's the point. It's the element of risk if you want to have a chance to win the lottery. If you lower your risk with someone who has played in the NHL, you will lower the potential upside of the player you're getting back.

That's where we have to trust our amateur/pro scouts to guide MB in trading Patch for the correct return.

Of course there's another way...you don't trade him. The Habs are under no oblicoblig to trade Pacioretty at a discounted price. He hasn't asked for a trade, he's not a pending UFA...

If they don't get a ransom for him, keep him.

That is not an option. Pacioretty must be traded, the sooner the higher the chance of getting the better return. You keep Pacioretty, your asset is losing value right before your eyes. Especially if we keep surrounding him with zero PMD and centers. Then next year at the deadline, the return won't even be Vilardi. And we'd just be forced to sign a declining asset to a bad deal or just let Pacioretty leave via UFA, and that's what we must avoid at all costs.

 

[417]

Nothing. That's the point. It's the element of risk if you want to have a chance to win the lottery. If you lower your risk with someone who has played in the NHL, you will lower the potential upside of the player you're getting back.

What lottery????

Habs shouldn't have to be assuming ALL the risk in a trade for a player like Pacioretty, with his history of production, his salary AND the fact he's got 2 more playoffs runs left in him...

What is the Kings risk here?

You're suggesting the Habs trade Pacioretty to the Kings for LESS then what they paid for to acquire a Milan Lucic who had an expiring deal.

Makes no sense to me.

That's where we have to trust our amateur/pro scouts to guide MB in trading Patch for the correct return.

I think amateur and professional scouts would have the same consensus...

Pacioretty is worth more than what rentals typically go for.

That is not an option. Pacioretty must be traded, the sooner the higher the chance of getting the better return. You keep Pacioretty, your asset is de-valueing right before your eyes. Especially if we keep surrounding him with zero PMD and centers. Then next year at the deadline, the return won't even be Vilardi. And we'd just be forced to sign a declining asset to a bad deal or just let Pacioretty leave via UFA, and that's what we must avoid at all costs.

Why MUST he be traded?

I don't agree at all, a team that sits 30th in goal scoring, does not HAVE to trade it's best, most proven and ONLY goal scorer for a discounted price.

Vilardi +1st is the type of return you get for Pacioretty at next year's deadline. They shouldn't accept that type of deal now.

Any team that acquires Pacioretty at 4.5M for the rest of this year AND NEXT...to play on their 1st line.

Imagine the Kings get to play Pacioretty on their 1st line with Kopitar this year and next, possibly adding a 40 goal scorer (but at the very least a 30-35 goal scorer)...

And the Habs may have ZERO to show for it this year and next (you ready to say Vilardi is going to play in the NHL next year? ).

THAT should cost something to the Kings...there's a premium teams should have to pay for that. Adding a big piece like that, which may end up winning them the Cup, should cost them more.