Speculation: Expansion Draft Discussion Part III - The Final Haul

[Agalloch]

Emelin? Who are the best D's available?

That's wise, defensemen are worth a lot these days.

 

[CupInSIX]

Emelin? Who are the best D's available?

Dumba
Vatanen
Enstrom
Methot
Dillon/Schlemko
van Riemsdyk
Hamhuis
Bogosian

 

[Seb]

Nope

Vegas is taking a forward from our crop......Plekanec or Hudon

This a fact or your opinion?

 

[Skip Bayless]

Emelin? Who are the best D's available?

No such thing as too many D

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Bodes well that they might actually take Plekasuck

 

[Agalloch]

Bodes well that they might actually take Plekasuck

It's becoming obvious now.

 

[Lebowski]

Emelin? Who are the best D's available?

That's funny. When I made picks for my own Vegas team I struggled reaching the minimum of 9 Ds. Thought there were far better assets available among forwards and goalies in general.

 

[Wats]

That's my point...when Bergevin took over hebl should of cleaned house

Furthermore, after the back to back elimination and BEFORE Plekanex contract extension, he should of maximised his value THEN.

This isn't revisionist theory either... I argued, vehemently and was shredded for it, that he should of moved him THEN.

A lot of people wanted a rebuild when Bergevin took over after 11/12. When he semi-committed to win-now, a lot more people argued against the idea of trading the veterans like Plekanec/Markov/etc. My biggest issue is he never full committed to anything, didn't go full win now nor did he even consider a rebuild. Just 'transition'.

My point is arguing to trade Plekanec after Habs committed to not rebuilding makes no sense. You have been a vocal member of the Plekanec is overrated/trade him club well before/past the year Bergevin took over. Plekanec is basically done now yes but if the Habs' goal is to make playoffs it made no sense to trade him.

Wanting a rebuild meant trading Plekanec/Markov/etc without saying, you didn't have to argue vehemently how overrated Plekanec was in the years past that.

 

[417]

A lot of people wanted a rebuild when Bergevin took over after 11/12. When he semi-committed to win-now, a lot more people argued against the idea of trading the veterans like Plekanec/Markov/etc. My biggest issue is he never full committed to anything, didn't go full win now nor did he even consider a rebuild. Just 'transition'.

Agreed 100%

My point is arguing to trade Plekanec after Habs committed to not rebuilding makes no sense.

Disagree - it still made sense, especially after they got knocked out in the playoffs in back to back years by the Rangers & Bolts and Plekanec was putrid in both playoffs.

You have been a vocal member of the Plekanec is overrated/trade him club well before/past the year Bergevin took over.

False - I started championing the cause to trade him right when Bergevin took over.

Plekanec is basically done now yes but if the Habs' goal is to make playoffs it made no sense to trade him.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Andy...using this mentality.

What has it gotten the Habs? So they kept him and made the playoffs 4 out of 5yrs...congratulations to the Habs

Now we're worse off down the middle, then when Bergevin took over in 2012.

Hope you think it was worth it

Wanting a rebuild meant trading Plekanec/Markov/etc without saying, you didn't have to argue vehemently how overrated Plekanec was in the years past that.

When you've got people starting threads comparing Plekanec to Patrice Bergeron or other guys like Kopitar/Toews/Datsyuk..

I think arguing he's overrated was quite appropriate...hell, it's STILL appropriate today since you've got people who ACTUALLY think that he can bounce back next year and return a 1st round pick in a trade.

 

[jaffy27]

This a fact or your opinion?

Fact

 

[jaffy27]

So.....are people still worried about losing Radulov to Vegas??

 

[417]

So.....are people still worried about losing Radulov to Vegas??

I asked the same question - still don't see it.

 

[Andy]

Of course not, no one could have...he played the most even strength, usually with the best players, he played the most on the PP as well.

Again, he played the most minutes because he was the best centre. Desharnais wasn't better and neither was Eller, why would they play Plekanec less minutes in all situations if he was their best centre?

Wrong...I've criticized their usage of Desharnais, there's nothing new here, who hasn't done that. That's beating a dead horse.

But everyone seems to have forgotten Plekanec was also a factor, a bigger factor IMO, in all of this.

Plekanec from 2012 to today has played almost 1000 more minutes at ES compared to Galchenyuk

Again, it's you who is presenting the situation of Galchenyuk and Plekanec at centre as two mutually exclusive options. The obvious solution was always to give Galchenyuk DD's minutes and have him duo with Plekanec. Of course Plekanec played more at ES than Galchenyuk, we was their most versatile centre, the only one who could have played in all situations. What you're presenting isn't an argument.

There's nothing 'weak' about my crusade regarding Plekanec...history has proven me right, you can try to twist what I've said in the past all you want, but there's a search function on this site as I'm sure you're aware.

There is nothing "right" about your crusade. You advanced a sky is falling complaint for 5 years, of course it will eventually happen. The same thing will happen with Weber if they keep him. It eventually happening won't make me right. It's like predicting that a player will retire.

The minutes Plekanec received should of been better distributed amongst other candidates, namely Galchenyuk & Eller.

I disagree, the minutes Desharnais was receiving should have been given to Galchenyuk 5 years ago and when Galchenyuk eventually started to show he can take over, then Plekanec's minutes should have been reduced to be given to Galchenyuk.

YOU assume that's my logic, nowhere in my post did I put the lack of success of this team ALL on Plekanec.

That's precisely what I said, "the type of logic you are advancing". It presumes implicitness of an argument in an argument.

BTW the Habs could of found a centre to bump him down in a clear 2nd line role...his name was/is Alex Galchenyuk.

Yes, precisely. They chose not to go down that route and they could have gone down that route by feeding him Desharnais' minutes.

You don't see how acquiring additional assets when the team wasn't expected to win, would of set us up for a better situation today?

Really?

I never said that, I said there is no guarentee that those assets will all develop into what you expected. Trading Plekanec for futures when a core is ready to complete is as big a gamble as keeping Plekanec for 5 years and trying to find a bonafide centre in the meantime.

I've been championing that cause for years...funny enough, I'm still labeled a "Bergevin defender".

Good for you? I don't really care what you are labeled as.

How can you not???

What do you mean how can I not? 5 years ago the Habs drafted a centre 3rd overall. 5 years later, that centre/winger, galchenyuk, might be traded. There is no guarantee that futures will become cornerstones. You hope so, but trading a vet doesn't necessarily mean that the spot will be replaced.

How is your opinion more worthy than mine in this scenario???

What if the pieces we got weren't busts? What if the pieces we got either turned into what we needed, or were used to acquire more established players?

I think you misunderstood. I didn't say they will for sure be busts, I asked you, what if they do bust? It is a possibility. There is no guarantee that the futures acquired will be adequate replacements. You only hope they do.

I never argued it was a 'ridiculous gamble'...I argued it wasn't the right decision to make, and 5yrs on, I was 100% right.

Again, I don't know if it's about being right. The gamble was evident to everyone, not just you. Players decline eventually and aren't as productive. Plekanec still had 4 solid seasons before this past one. Good enough seasons that if MB acquired a bonafide top centre, the Habs would have been in a solid contender. Gambles have positive outcome and negative ones. Everyone saw the negative side of the gamble, we just hoped MB would have filled the #1 centre spot in the meantime. He failed and therefore lost on the gamble.

I don't think you predicted anything other than pointing out the obvious: if MB doesn't get a first line centre, keeping Plekanec will be useless. But for all intents and purposes, the Habs goal was to make the playoffs and compete, therefore trading Plekanec wasn't the best option for the situation they saw themselves in.

How you can sit here and say I'm wrong now or twist this debate into something else is odd...again, the proofs in the old threads.

Because this holier than thou nostradamus attitude is misleading. The habs had two gambles they could have made: 1. Keep Plekanec and try to bump him down while he was still productive by getting a #1 centre 2. Trade Plekanec and hope his futures make the club in time while the core is still competitive. These two options were evident to everyone.

For the 1000th time...I NEVER ARGUED HE'S BEEN IN DECLINE FOR THE LAST X NUMBER OF YEARS.

what I argued, 5yrs ago, was that his play and his value was as high as it would ever be and that form THAT point, his value would only continue to decline.

Again, this can be said about Markov 5 years ago, or Weber currently. These are not arguments to trade a player. The Habs made the same gamble with Markov, but we didn't have to read the same post from you about him for 5 years and something tells me we won't have to read the same post about Weber for the next 5 years.

That someone's value is at their highest is not a reason for trading someone. If so, we should move Pacioretty, but we won;t.

You and others have decided to twist what I've argued..but once more, the proof is in those threads.

Again...you can try to shape my argument then, into what you want now. I stand behind what I said and history shows I was 100% right.

That you pointed out the obvious doesn't make you right and MB wrong. There was clear arguments to keep and trade Plekanec. I'm not going to fault MB here for keeping him as Plekanec is one of the reasons why the team has been competitive. What I will blame MB for is never getting that #1 centre to bump Plekanec down. That this never happened doesn't change the fact that keeping Plekanec was a good gamble.

Keep challenging me on this, and i'll be more than happy to post some of the gems of those days. I don't want to get in a **** match here, it's not about what he said or whatever.

Give my credit as its due, because I recall getting absolutely shredded over my opinion. The fact some of you want to act now like I wasn't all over that is cheap.

Again, I don't know if it's a matter of credit. Because someone's value is at its highest, doesn't mean trading him is the best option for your context. Keeping Plekanec was a good gamble, MB just failed in providing the proper support.

Oddly enough...the Nashville Predators moved him at the perfect time. Trust me, they don't get a player of PK Subban's value if they're trying to move him today.

It's odd you'll use the Weber situation as part of your argument, it supports mine if nothing else.

Does this mean we'll see posts from you for the next 5 years arguing to trade Weber? Again, why Plekanec specifically? Why weren't the posts repeated for Markov who was in the same boat? Why not have these repeated posts about Pacioretty who's value will never be this high because of his contract.

Again, I just don't buy the "highest value" justification for a trade. Everyone knows that if you keep a player too long you will miss out of the value, the question is what you do while you have the player. No one could have guessed that MB was in fact going to do nothing during the 4 years where Plekanec was productive.

Well I argued that the condition they needed to create, was to acquire additional assets.

The question is was teh Habs core at that time in a context where they needed futures? I don't think so, that's why keeping Plekanec was a reasonable decision.

I'm not, nor did I not in the past, assume they'd get "high end pieces" for Plekanec...I said they could get a good package like a prospect and a 1st round pick, possibly a bit more.

But does that package help the Habs win from 2012 to 2016 where their core was hitting their prime?

We already had Galchenyuk, who we should of groomed as a center...we had Lars Eller who was more than capable, and still is, capable of handling 3rd line duties.

I agree, but Plekanec did not play both 1st and second line centre. We had another centre in Desharnais that wasn't cutting it. There was an opportunity to groom Galchenyuk. Plekanec's presence on the team didn't prevent Galchenyuk from learning the centre position.

Look at all the top centers that have been traded since Bergevin became GM...you want to know why the Habs could never land one?

Seguin, O'Reilly, Spezza, Johansen. The Habs could never land one because they didn't want to pay the price. Everyone is tradeable. With the east being so weak, the time for the Habs to have bought was from 2012-2016. That rests on MB. He failed in this regard, but it stilld oesn't mean keeping Plekanec was a terrible decision.

It's because they didn't have enough assets (players, draft picks) to acquire them...they couldn't outbid other teams who were either prospect rich, or draft pick rich or both, to compete with them.

Where there is a will, there is way. If they didn't think Galchenyuk was going to be the solution, then they could have traded him for a top centre. Gallagher, Beaulieu, 1st round picks all have value. I don't buy this narrative.

Marc Bergevin took over a team in 2012 that had finished 3rd last...he could of easily packaged Plekanec for the package I mentioned above.

The team immediately rebounded and demonstrated that it had the pieces to compete in a weak conferences. It would have been a silly decision. Subban, Price and Pacioretty were just entering their primes. It would have been wasteful to not take immediate advantage of that while they were all cost controlled.

What's the worse that would of happened? The Habs end up being a bottom 5 team ahead of the 2013 draft, but with 2 1st round picks in tow and an improved prospect core as a result of the Plekanec trade?

If we're talking in hypotheticals, what if none of the picks and prospects they acquired make any impact? We're in 2017 and we have barely seen any impact from the players the team already picked in 2013.

Go look at the 2013 draft...you know what the Habs would like today had they finished bottom 5 that year and held 2 1st round picks???

Would you be mad if the Habs had a Sean Monahan & Alex Wennberg? (just an example).

But what if they picked Lindholm and Morin? One successful pick and one bust, are they that much better? You can't just cherry pick successful picks in hindsight and assume that's what the habs would have taken.

The Habs didn't need to compete WITH Plekanec in 2012...they should of continued to bottom out while reshaping their team, and Plekanec should of been a prime piece used to accelerate what today SHOULD be a MUCH better team.

Bottoming out doesn't guarentee a good team tho. This is just wishful thinking. There are teams like Arizona who have bottomed out for years have nothing to show for it. Edmonton did absolutely nothing for a decade until they won a lottery and got McDavid.

 

[rockjngo]

What about sending Vegas 1st 2nd and 3rd round this year for Mark Methot and Matt Dumba?

? Weber
Methot Dumba
Marko Benn
Davidson

 

[Playmaker09]

That's funny. When I made picks for my own Vegas team I struggled reaching the minimum of 9 Ds. Thought there were far better assets available among forwards and goalies in general.

Selecting 3+ good goalies is pretty worthless IMO.

Everyone will know you're trying to pawn them off and so you'll get underwhelming offers in return. Unlike other positions where having depth is a good thing, having multiple talented goalies doesn't help you as only one can play and the rest provide absolutely nothing to your team from the bench/pressbox. So teams will always out-wait you in the game of chicken because you're in such a position of weakness they know you'll be the first to cave in.

 

[Lebowski]

Selecting 3+ good goalies is pretty worthless IMO.

Everyone will know you're trying to pawn them off and so you'll get underwhelming offers in return. Unlike other positions where having depth is a good thing, having multiple talented goalies doesn't help you as only one can play and the rest provide absolutely nothing to your team from the bench/pressbox. So teams will always out-wait you in the game of chicken because you're in such a position of weakness they know you'll be the first to cave in.

Fleury, Mrazek and Raanta are no brainer picks, and they'll all be in high demand.

 

[PriceIsGod]

What about sending Vegas 1st 2nd and 3rd round this year for Mark Methot and Matt Dumba?

? Weber
Methot Dumba
Marko Benn
Davidson

I just see them holding onto Dumba unless someone really wows them with a special deal imo

 

[CupInSIX]

There's like SEVENTEEN proper NHL defensemen available in the expansion draft plus 2 solid prospects. That's not even including the UFAs Vegas could try and sign.

This only confirms my suspicions. Holy jumpin.

 

[417]

Again, he played the most minutes because he was the best centre. Desharnais wasn't better and neither was Eller, why would they play Plekanec less minutes in all situations if he was their best centre?

Let's remove Desharnais from this discussion...it's pointless.

As for the rest...I'm not going to keep going back and forth on that with you. Agree to disagree.

Again, it's you who is presenting the situation of Galchenyuk and Plekanec at centre as two mutually exclusive options. The obvious solution was always to give Galchenyuk DD's minutes and have him duo with Plekanec. Of course Plekanec played more at ES than Galchenyuk, we was their most versatile centre, the only one who could have played in all situations. What you're presenting isn't an argument.

There were more solutions...you choose to limit yourself.

I'm not

There is nothing "right" about your crusade. You advanced a sky is falling complaint for 5 years, of course it will eventually happen. The same thing will happen with Weber if they keep him. It eventually happening won't make me right. It's like predicting that a player will retire.

Once again, you can keep trying to twist what I argued in the past...it's weak though, because you've change my argument into what you wished I had said.

As I've said, my argument stands...what argued then, is true today.

Summer of 2016, right before Plekanec as entering his UFA season, I asked Habs fans...are you guys OK with paying a player who will transition into our 3rd line center, 6M a year.

And that's EXACTLY what happened and there's only a handful of Habs fans who are ok with Plekanec centering our 3rd line today.

Let me ask you a question.

How do you like having to pay what is our 3rd line center 6M when we can't even ice 2 top 6 centers ahead of him??

I disagree, the minutes Desharnais was receiving should have been given to Galchenyuk 5 years ago and when Galchenyuk eventually started to show he can take over, then Plekanec's minutes should have been reduced to be given to Galchenyuk.

Even if they had done this...we'd STILL be sitting here needing a top 6C and having Plekanec making 6M a year to center our 3rd line.

I never said that, I said there is no guarentee that those assets will all develop into what you expected. Trading Plekanec for futures when a core is ready to complete is as big a gamble as keeping Plekanec for 5 years and trying to find a bonafide centre in the meantime.

The core was NOT ready to compete...is that not crystal clear today???

What do you mean how can I not? 5 years ago the Habs drafted a centre 3rd overall. 5 years later, that centre/winger, galchenyuk, might be traded. There is no guarantee that futures will become cornerstones. You hope so, but trading a vet doesn't necessarily mean that the spot will be replaced

.

We had Lars Eller...a more than capable in-house replacement.

Not as a top 6 center, but as a #3C that Plekanec IS today.

I think you misunderstood. I didn't say they will for sure be busts, I asked you, what if they do bust? It is a possibility. There is no guarantee that the futures acquired will be adequate replacements. You only hope they do.

What if they don't?

Again, I don't know if it's about being right. The gamble was evident to everyone, not just you. Players decline eventually and aren't as productive. Plekanec still had 4 solid seasons before this past one. Good enough seasons that if MB acquired a bonafide top centre, the Habs would have been in a solid contender. Gambles have positive outcome and negative ones. Everyone saw the negative side of the gamble, we just hoped MB would have filled the #1 centre spot in the meantime. He failed and therefore lost on the gamble.

Precisely...knowing when to cut bait with a player is a skill the best GM's possess. The one's who don't end up holding on to players for sentimental reasons.

Again i'll ask you...what has keeping Plekanec all this time accomplished for the Habs?

They're in a worse spot down the middle than they were 5yrs ago...and for what???

I don't think you predicted anything other than pointing out the obvious: if MB doesn't get a first line centre, keeping Plekanec will be useless. But for all intents and purposes, the Habs goal was to make the playoffs and compete, therefore trading Plekanec wasn't the best option for the situation they saw themselves in.

I literally copy/pasted a post from 2015 for you and yet you STILL argue that I didn't predict anything?

I'll repeat, in 2015 I asked if Habs fans wanted to re-sign Plekanec at 6M a year to be our 3rd line center....

a few weeks later, that's EXACTLY what happened.

Because this holier than thou nostradamus attitude is misleading. The habs had two gambles they could have made: 1. Keep Plekanec and try to bump him down while he was still productive by getting a #1 centre 2. Trade Plekanec and hope his futures make the club in time while the core is still competitive. These two options were evident to everyone.

Why do you keep insisting that the Habs needed to be competitive in 2012-13-14???

They should of been in building mode...asset stocking mode...the time to be competitive is NOW...not 3yrs ago.

Again, this can be said about Markov 5 years ago, or Weber currently. These are not arguments to trade a player. The Habs made the same gamble with Markov, but we didn't have to read the same post from you about him for 5 years and something tells me we won't have to read the same post about Weber for the next 5 years.

I argued EXACTLY what I've argued with regards to Plekanec...I did so for Markov as well. I just didn't get nearly as much resistance towards it.

Once more, I'd be more than happy to provide you with the links to those posts if you want. Just like everything else I've claimed.

That someone's value is at their highest is not a reason for trading someone. If so, we should move Pacioretty, but we won;t.

We probably should given our needs...but it takes a GM with foresight to make such a move and I don't think that's MB.

But hell yes, if this team wanted to accelerate it's progression, the best way to do it would be to move Pacioretty right now

100%

That you pointed out the obvious doesn't make you right and MB wrong. There was clear arguments to keep and trade Plekanec. I'm not going to fault MB here for keeping him as Plekanec is one of the reasons why the team has been competitive. What I will blame MB for is never getting that #1 centre to bump Plekanec down. That this never happened doesn't change the fact that keeping Plekanec was a good gamble.

Hope it was worth it

Again, I don't know if it's a matter of credit. Because someone's value is at its highest, doesn't mean trading him is the best option for your context. Keeping Plekanec was a good gamble, MB just failed in providing the proper support

.

Depends on the player and the context.

Does this mean we'll see posts from you for the next 5 years arguing to trade Weber? Again, why Plekanec specifically? Why weren't the posts repeated for Markov who was in the same boat? Why not have these repeated posts about Pacioretty who's value will never be this high because of his contract.

Trust me...if I thought the habs could get appropriate value for Weber. I'd be arguing for that exactly.

Again, I just don't buy the "highest value" justification for a trade. Everyone knows that if you keep a player too long you will miss out of the value, the question is what you do while you have the player. No one could have guessed that MB was in fact going to do nothing during the 4 years where Plekanec was productive.

His production was artificially inflated through massive usage by a coach who leaned on him and Desharnais and refused to trust anyone else.

Once more...hope it was worth it for you

But does that package help the Habs win from 2012 to 2016 where their core was hitting their prime?

The Habs core is in their prime NOW...not 5yrs ago

I agree, but Plekanec did not play both 1st and second line centre. We had another centre in Desharnais that wasn't cutting it. There was an opportunity to groom Galchenyuk. Plekanec's presence on the team didn't prevent Galchenyuk from learning the centre position.

I think the presence of Plekanec and Desharnais prevented Galchenyuk's development down the middle.

MT's first go to guy was Plekanec...his 2nd go to guy was Desharnais. Usage demonstrates this. It's a fact

Seguin, O'Reilly, Spezza, Johansen. The Habs could never land one because they didn't want to pay the price. Everyone is tradeable. With the east being so weak, the time for the Habs to have bought was from 2012-2016. That rests on MB. He failed in this regard, but it stilld oesn't mean keeping Plekanec was a terrible decision.

More like they couldn't.

The team immediately rebounded and demonstrated that it had the pieces to compete in a weak conferences. It would have been a silly decision. Subban, Price and Pacioretty were just entering their primes. It would have been wasteful to not take immediate advantage of that while they were all cost controlled.

Fools gold

If we're talking in hypotheticals, what if none of the picks and prospects they acquired make any impact? We're in 2017 and we have barely seen any impact from the players the team already picked in 2013.


But what if they picked Lindholm and Morin? One successful pick and one bust, are they that much better? You can't just cherry pick successful picks in hindsight and assume that's what the habs would have taken.

What if they landed Monahan and Wennberg?

Bottoming out doesn't guarentee a good team tho. This is just wishful thinking. There are teams like Arizona who have bottomed out for years have nothing to show for it. Edmonton did absolutely nothing for a decade until they won a lottery and got McDavid

Bottoming does guarantee one thing...high draft picks and high draft picks have tremendous value.

 

[didimentionlarseller]

this is stressing me out......please let this expansion draft be over already and Galchenyuk is still on the team

so the thread general consensus is still Plekanec gets taken?

 

[Seb]

Fact

Where has it been confirmed?

 

[Runner77]

So.....are people still worried about losing Radulov to Vegas??

Not as much, given the acquisition of the younger Drouin who will only get better over the next several years.

With Vegas potentially ending up with so many Ds in tow, could be a pathway for Bergevin to try and land one for his top 4, esp. a LHD.

 

[CrAzYNiNe]

Not as much, given the acquisition of the younger Drouin who will only get better over the next several years.

With Vegas potentially ending up with so many Ds in tow, could be a pathway for Bergevin to try and land one for his top 4, esp. a LHD.

With Drouin, we are right back where we started (if Radulov walks). It's very important that he rounds out the top6 with Radulov and preferably trades Pacioretty for a center. I would be so impressed with MB if he was able to make a deal around Leddy and a center for Pacioretty+.

Dumba seems interesting, but is a RHD. Not sure the value to acquire him to bury him down on the 3rd pairing makes sense. Unless Petry is gone.

Vatanen for sure is not going anywhere, no way the Ducks don't side deal that. If not, I would entertain a deal for him.

Enstrom doesn't interest me more than Emelin tbh.

Methot could be interesting, but not what we need on D. I find that he and Benn are similar

 

[Runner77]

Vatanen for sure is not going anywhere, no way the Ducks don't side deal that. If not, I would entertain a deal for him.

We can't even speculate on these Ds with so many side deals likely to be announced. What a quagmire.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

That's funny. When I made picks for my own Vegas team I struggled reaching the minimum of 9 Ds. Thought there were far better assets available among forwards and goalies in general.

D are worth a lot. Teams are always looking for them. I can see:

Anaheim: Shea Theordore or Vantanen
Boston: Adam McQuaid
Buffalo: Zack Bogosian
Columbus: Jack Johnson
Dallas: Dan Hamhuis
L.A.: Brayden McNabb
Minnesota: Dumba or Scandella
Montreal: Emelin
Ottawa: Methot
San Jose: Dillon
St. Louis: Bortuzzo
TB: Dotchin or Koekoek
Winnipeg: Enstrom

as targets. That's 13D. They'll only take 3 goalies and will likely have to trade one because of waivers in the fall. You can only keep 2 on the roster.

Same with D. They'll be pretty experienced, but alot of D are also UFA 2018, which will allow LV to trade them at TD for some good picks.

I can see Theodore and Dumba being core players for them going forward.

They'll have a decent D for sure.