LondonKendrick
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2016
- 1,532
- 122
Proposal: Tanev for Galchenyuk
- Thread starter LondonKendrick
- Start date
nickdawg95
scoutdawg
- Jan 7, 2016
- 3,285
- 1,769
Hostile Offer
Artist formerly known as Eagle Peninsula
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 26,985
- 23,621
That's good and all, but defense isn't really the Habs' main concern right now...
LondonKendrick
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2016
- 1,532
- 122
I was going to put together a logical response about Montreal's depth of D on the right hand side, or just defensive defenseman in general, then I saw this and realized it wasn't worth the effort.
David Suzuki
Registered User
outside of the Caps game the Habs defense has been fine. Their offense has been terrible. They can't trade Galch unless it's for futures or in a package for a scorer.
because you dont win games constantly defending. Cool stuff you're able to defend the guy you feed the to puck because you cant get it out. Hockey has changed. Habs mentality hasnt.
LondonKendrick
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2016
- 1,532
- 122
In reading these responses, Habs aren't getting a top six center for Galchenyuk, they would have made a deal by now if possible, he's on their 4th line, the value of exchange Galcheyuk who needs more time to develop in favor of a top pairing defenseman?
I hate both teams so it's not like I have a bias.
I hate both teams so it's not like I have a bias.
Last edited:
Benning acquiring Galchenyuk? Come on now... no meat and definitely no potatoes, not to mention he is almost a russian.
I'm far from a Benning fan (I think he's done a pretty bad job as GM so far) but the "meat and potatoes" narrative is pretty tiring. Benning hasn't been shy in acquiring skill players - see Boeser, McCann, Pettersson in the draft and players like Burmistrov, Goldobin, Dahlen and even Vanek, Gagner via Free Agency or trades.
That said, in a vacuum this is probably fair value wise but Montreal has no need for someone like Tanev.
who said value was off?? it just doesnt fit our team. tanev is not a type of Dman we need right now. Galchenyuk is closer to what we need than what tanev is. Now tell me why we would make that deal, just for the sake of trading Galchenyuk, somehow the organisation doesnt seem High on Chucky for some reason, yes he will probably be traded for a lesser player, if they dont hold into him to keep him or to boost is value! but trading him for something we dont need because value is fair or better? doesnt make sense.
LondonKendrick
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2016
- 1,532
- 122
Did Colorado just get Tanev + 1st for Duchene in this 3 way? God that's bad.
Yet another team with good RHD, and, in addition, a team that definitely doesn't need older defensemen. Batting 1,000.
lol exacly... not because value wise the deal is good that it makes sense.
Montreal is playing terribly and even if they werent. Team pretty much never trade their first before they land a playoffs spot.
As we speak, theres not much player that could be available that i would gamble Montreals 1st. Its way too risky. especially the way they are playing.
firstemperor
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 8,755
- 1,445
Habs don't need Tanev...they have Petry, Weber on the right side. They need a high-end PMD that can create offense/break-outs on the left side, not anymore stay-at-home defensive D.
If Edler was younger, he'd be a better fit than Tanev is for their team. The only player the Habs probably have interest in is Horvat- which ends the discussion between both teams.
Both teams are just bad trade partners.
If Edler was younger, he'd be a better fit than Tanev is for their team. The only player the Habs probably have interest in is Horvat- which ends the discussion between both teams.
Both teams are just bad trade partners.
JuniorNelson
Registered User
A Loyal Dog
I love SlafCaulZuki (pronounced Slafkovsky). Woof!
- Oct 20, 2016
- 9,564
- 11,526
What's garbage is MTL acquiring Tanev in exchange for Galchenyuk. First, the value is off, and MTL needs offense way more than defense.
