Speculation: Trade Proposal Thread v7

[Monctonscout]

If you think Eller has higher trade value than Briere then you should do stand up comedy. Bourque maybe, but if we can get McGinn for Bourque (Who is a center with MUCH better numbers than Eller) then Bourque as well has higher value.

Lol @ you thinking Eller is a good 3rd line center, lol xD

As poorly as Eller is playing recently, I'm sure he has twice the trade value of Briere.

 

[Mr. Hab]

Big NO from me (Yakupov FOR Lars Eller, Sebastien Collberg, Artturi Lehkonen).

 

[yianik]

I hope you are kidding. You are suggesting we trade our 1st, Collberg, and Markov for Toffoli? How about Markov for Toffoli and their 1st? If they say no then move on. These are horrible proposals.

No, its Markov, Gionta and 1st for Toffoli. Colberg or other good prospect gets added in when we also trade Gorges for Muzzin as Muzzin is younger, bigger and has higher offensive ability than Gorges.

First off, keeping Markov could certainly be the best move to make. However, if we were trading Markov I have added to him to create a package to get away from the Markov for bottom 6 player , B prospect and late 1st giving us 40% chance of average player.

I want a very good asset back in any trade for Markov. To me a young , high skill, okay sized RW is a high quality asset and one that fills a big need.

You think we should get Toffoli and their 1st for Markov instead of having to add our 1st. I hope I am wrong and you are right on the values.

 

[ECWHSWI]

No, its Markov, Gionta and 1st for Toffoli. Colberg or other good prospect gets added in when we also trade Gorges for Muzzin as Muzzin is younger, bigger and has higher offensive ability than Gorges.

First off, keeping Markov could certainly be the best move to make. However, if we were trading Markov I have added to him to create a package to get away from the Markov for bottom 6 player , B prospect and late 1st giving us 40% chance of average player.

I want a very good asset back in any trade for Markov. To me a young , high skill, okay sized RW is a high quality asset and one that fills a big need.

You think we should get Toffoli and their 1st for Markov instead of having to add our 1st. I hope I am wrong and you are right on the values.

that's a joke right ? we're sellers and yet WE are the ones giving the 1st ?

 

[DAChampion]

Is Toffoli the next Lidstrom or something?

 

[Halifaxhab*]

As poorly as Eller is playing recently, I'm sure he has twice the trade value of Briere.

But 2 x zero is still zero!

 

[bsl]

But 2 x zero is still zero!

No, it's 00. One more digit. Digits have mass, therefore 2 X zero is worth more.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

No, it's 00. One more digit. Digits have mass, therefore 2 X zero is worth more.

uhmmmmm....ok. so he costs 00$ that's real different.

 

[yianik]

that's a joke right ? we're sellers and yet WE are the ones giving the 1st ?

Well, if we could trade Markov and Gionta to LA for Toffoli and their 1st that would be great, but do you think that is realistic ?

I am getting the feeling most disagree with my approach that IF we are trading Markov we should add if we have to in order to get a young high quality roster player back, that fills a need for us. Several have reacted strongly to my suggestion we add a 1st. Have to say I don't get it but it looks like I am in the minority and what people want is to get that LA rumoured type deal where we get Clifford, an apparently very good bottom 6 player, Pearson who I think is a B prospect and a late 1st which gives us an even chance of getting an average player ( yes I know TT ). I don't see how we are a better team now or in a few years with that kind of return, but I do see how we are better if we have added a Silfverberg or Toffoli, even if we are adding. Again, IF Markov is being moved. I fully stand by my opinion but acknowledge most seem to think I am out to lunch.

 

[yianik]

Is Toffoli the next Lidstrom or something?

No , he is a very good skilled average sized young (21) RW and Silfverberg is the same but 23 and a bit bigger.

 

[1993]

Well, if we could trade Markov and Gionta to LA for Toffoli and their 1st that would be great, but do you think that is realistic ?

I am getting the feeling most disagree with my approach that IF we are trading Markov we should add if we have to in order to get a young high quality roster player back, that fills a need for us. Several have reacted strongly to my suggestion we add a 1st. Have to say I don't get it but it looks like I am in the minority and what people want is to get that LA rumoured type deal where we get Clifford, an apparently very good bottom 6 player, Pearson who I think is a B prospect and a late 1st which gives us an even chance of getting an average player ( yes I know TT ). I don't see how we are a better team now or in a few years with that kind of return, but I do see how we are better if we have added a Silfverberg or Toffoli, even if we are adding. Again, IF Markov is being moved. I fully stand by my opinion but acknowledge most seem to think I am out to lunch.

I actually agree if the player is top notch. Give a package for ROR and I am in as he is proven. Toffoli has not proved anything yet.

 

[Akhurite]

Don't know I'm allowed posting this on here but I wrote an article a la armchair GM.

http://nhlfiles.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/what-should-montreal-do-at-the-trade-deadline/

Let me know what you guys think.

Not really keen on mcginn, but other then that i couldn't of said it any better myself

 

[sampollock]

Troffli , can't prove much in the LA system, they are held back , Sutter system.

 

[yianik]

I actually agree if the player is top notch. Give a package for ROR and I am in as he is proven. Toffoli has not proved anything yet.

Toffoli and Silfverberg have shown ability and have had success, but they are just a couple of years in. Yes, I am with you on ROR that he is much more accomplished and proven, though a LW. Would love to have him, though because he is more proven the add ons would be higher.

That's the equation, take a few assets where the chances are you will just get average players or increase your odds of having a top notch talent by adding to get a very promising piece back, or add a lot and try to get a known and very good commodity. I don't want to shop Markov at the Dollar Store and I wasn't suggesting going to Birks either, more of halfway between, but I would go the very high quality route( ROR ) before the grab bag of players.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Not really keen on mcginn, but other then that i couldn't of said it any better myself

Thanks! Yeah I'm a big believer in McGinn haha and reuniting the EGG line

Toffoli and Silfverberg have shown ability and have had success, but they are just a couple of years in. Yes, I am with you on ROR that he is much more accomplished and proven, though a LW. Would love to have him, though because he is more proven the add ons would be higher.

That's the equation, take a few assets where the chances are you will just get average players or increase your odds of having a top notch talent by adding to get a very promising piece back, or add a lot and try to get a known and very good commodity. I don't want to shop Markov at the Dollar Store and I wasn't suggesting going to Birks either, more of halfway between, but I would go the very high quality route( ROR ) before the grab bag of players.

The problem I have is that Toffoli and Silfverberg are nice pieces and all but I still don't think they put us over the top. It's sad that we could have probably gotten Forsberg last year for Markov...

 

[yianik]

Thanks! Yeah I'm a big believer in McGinn haha and reuniting the EGG line

The problem I have is that Toffoli and Silfverberg are nice pieces and all but I still don't think they put us over the top. It's sad that we could have probably gotten Forsberg last year for Markov...

I agree with you in your article about the window, though I think its a bit wider, say 4, maybe 5 years instead of 2-3 ( you noted average age and we will likely get younger with the young guys coming up ).

I also agree these players wouldn't put us over the top, but except for it coming at the price of Markov, we would be one step closer as we would then have 2 top 6 RW and then Patches and Galchenyuk on the LW. Of course there would be the hole with Markov gone, but that is why I would also try to do an upgrade on Gorges, again adding on to get quality.

 

[JAVO16]

Thanks! Yeah I'm a big believer in McGinn haha and reuniting the EGG line

The problem I have is that Toffoli and Silfverberg are nice pieces and all but I still don't think they put us over the top. It's sad that we could have probably gotten Forsberg last year for Markov...

Why would "putting us over the top" matter ? We're not reaching for the top by trading Markov either way. The team trading for Markov is reaching for the top. Also, I like Forsberg, but I don't see him as being a much better prospect or young player than Toffoli or Silfverberg. These guys were picked lower than Forsberg, but they've developed extremely well.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Why would "putting us over the top" matter ? We're not reaching for the top by trading Markov either way. The team trading for Markov is reaching for the top.

I should have clarified what I meant by that. I meant that Toffoli and Silfverberg are still unproven and it's not like we don't have prospects of our own that with the same potential (Bozon, Andrighetto and Collberg). I don't think they will be difference makers in the future, a guy like Wilson though, I think that's the guy that you need in the playoffs and he's shown that he can play in the NHL given his role.

 

[Halifaxhab*]

Why would "putting us over the top" matter ? We're not reaching for the top by trading Markov either way. The team trading for Markov is reaching for the top. Also, I like Forsberg, but I don't see him as being a much better prospect or young player than Toffoli or Silfverberg. These guys were picked lower than Forsberg, but they've developed extremely well.

At this point I agree. I would rather get Toffoli or Silf over Forsberg.

 

[JAVO16]

I should have clarified what I meant by that. I meant that Toffoli and Silfverberg are still unproven and it's not like we don't have prospects of our own that with the same potential (Bozon, Andrighetto and Collberg). I don't think they will be difference makers in the future, a guy like Wilson though, I think that's the guy that you need in the playoffs and he's shown that he can play in the NHL given his role.

I think that Silfverberg and Toffoli having already both proved that their game translates to the NHL puts them way ahead of all these guys. Andrighetto is developing well in the AHL and he might get to the level that these 2 guys are at right now soon, but neither Collberg or Bozon have even showed that they can translate their game to the professional level in NA and that's a huge difference. Basically, both these guys are NHL players right now while our guys are prospects. If we got either of Toffoli or Silfverberg alone for Markov, I'd be a happy camper.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Well, if we could trade Markov and Gionta to LA for Toffoli and their 1st that would be great, but do you think that is realistic ?

I am getting the feeling most disagree with my approach that IF we are trading Markov we should add if we have to in order to get a young high quality roster player back, that fills a need for us. Several have reacted strongly to my suggestion we add a 1st. Have to say I don't get it but it looks like I am in the minority and what people want is to get that LA rumoured type deal where we get Clifford, an apparently very good bottom 6 player, Pearson who I think is a B prospect and a late 1st which gives us an even chance of getting an average player ( yes I know TT ). I don't see how we are a better team now or in a few years with that kind of return, but I do see how we are better if we have added a Silfverberg or Toffoli, even if we are adding. Again, IF Markov is being moved. I fully stand by my opinion but acknowledge most seem to think I am out to lunch.

you dont get it ?? really ??

losing Markov will weaken our D corp and chances are that by doing so will drop in the standings, meaning our 1st round pick will be a really good one...

so, we lose our PO spot and while doing so we lose the chance at a quality pick sice we're giving to another team...


and to makes team better, to fill the void left by Markov you'll not only sell Gorges but add another prospect to it...


I think your "offers" would be better if you were to send even more picks and prospects to contenders...

 

[yianik]

you dont get it ?? really ??

losing Markov will weaken our D corp and chances are that by doing so will drop in the standings, meaning our 1st round pick will be a really good one...

so, we lose our PO spot and while doing so we lose the chance at a quality pick sice we're giving to another team...


and to makes team better, to fill the void left by Markov you'll not only sell Gorges but add another prospect to it...


I think your "offers" would be better if you were to send even more picks and prospects to contenders...

So I have said IF we are losing Markov then we should add in if we have to and get a quality young roster player than a bunch of bottom 6 players. Possibly with such a good player we wont drop as much with the loss of Markov. Of course with your brilliant logic we should trade Markov for garbage and hang on to the 1st round pick in the hopes we will have a higher pick in what is supposed to be a weak draft. So instead of having a good player in the line-up for losing Markov we would have a higher pick and the chance to pick a good player. Brilliant.

Regarding Gorges I suggested him being in a trade that would get us a bigger, younger, more offensive d-man in Jake Muzzin. I have elsewhere also trying to packaging Gorges in a play for Edler if our pro scouts still view him as a top 2 or 3 player. In which case that would be an upgrade on Gorges.

What don't you get ?

 

[ECWHSWI]

So I have said IF we are losing Markov then we should add in if we have to and get a quality young roster player than a bunch of bottom 6 players. Possibly with such a good player we wont drop as much with the loss of Markov. Of course with your brilliant logic we should trade Markov for garbage and hang on to the 1st round pick in the hopes we will have a higher pick in what is supposed to be a weak draft. So instead of having a good player in the line-up for losing Markov we would have a higher pick and the chance to pick a good player. Brilliant.

Regarding Gorges I suggested him being in a trade that would get us a bigger, younger, more offensive d-man in Jake Muzzin. I have elsewhere also trying to packaging Gorges in a play for Edler if our pro scouts still view him as a top 2 or 3 player. In which case that would be an upgrade on Gorges.

What don't you get ?

to the contrary...

but I do like your idea of trading more picks and prospects while were selling, giving them to contenders so they can use the players we send to be over the top this year and use the picks and prospects we gave them in the next few years so they can put themselves over the top again...

while we contemplate the ONE good player we acquired...

recipe for success!

 

[kinghock]

You can get Toffoli and Nolan for Pacioretty or Galchenyuk or Subban, but not for Markov/Gionta/Bourque combination.
LA dreams every day to trade Muzzin for Gorges to you.

 

[yianik]

to the contrary...

but I do like your idea of trading more picks and prospects while were selling, giving them to contenders so they can use the players we send to be over the top this year and use the picks and prospects we gave them in the next few years so they can put themselves over the top again...

while we contemplate the ONE good player we acquired...

recipe for success!

Actually what I would like to do is add to our pretty good core pieces who are in their prime and will be for 4-5 more years and try for a Cup over the next few years, as opposed to waiting for all the picks and prospects you want to hoard over the next forever number of years. My what a plan , keep collecting picks and prospects until one day all the stars align and without ever having to make a meaningful trade , we win a Cup with only our drafted players and a few UFA signings.

By the way, I couldn't care less if a team we trade with wins the Cup this year ( we aren't ) and in 4 years or whatever , as long as we win a Cup along the way. And by the way, the chances of the one 1st round pick in the Markov proposal or the one prospect in my Gorges proposal being better than Toffoli or Silfverberg, Muzzin or Edler, are pretty low. Could happen, but the trade for us would still be good now and for the next bunch of years, which is the point.