What? its bad even for a top-2 lol Monahan is worth more than any unproven prospect beside Dahlin in this years draft.There's no incentive for Calgary, unless the pick lands in the top-2.
And, in that case, there's no incentive for Montreal.
Discussing trades for top-5 picks is so stupid. Those deals never, ever happen.
So a 30~ year old top line W (declining) is worth more than an under 25 year old top line C?
Correct me if i'm wrong but
Monahan > 4th overall
Pacioretty > Kylington, conditional 2nd
Thus, wouldn't the value somewhat even off somewhere in between?
Although, Montreal could also throw in a goalie (Lindgren or McNiven) as well in return for another piece.
No a top line 30 yr old Winger is worth more than 20 yr old # 4/5 D-man.
Uh no and nowhere did I remotely say that. Also, Pacioretty declining.... lol
Pretty simple concept. Montreal get's a big, number 1 center and the Flames get to unite the two Tkachuk brothers.
I don’t know about that, Svechnikov is certainley making a case for himself to be game changing talent.Why would Calgary do this? Even if it's #2 overall, I think the Habs would do it. For sure #3 or later. Don't see why Calgary would give up their #1C though.
It could be the next sam Bennett
Mathew Tkachuk is our best player imo. If we can get another Tkachuk that is just as effective then we really should do it. I love the idea of having those 2 out there totally disrupting opposing teams lol.
Remember when we (the Leafs fanbase) wanted to trade the farm to unite the Schenn brothers......William Nylander is pretty good. Wanting to overpay for Alex Nylander 2 years ago because of that doesn't look like it would have paid off too well right about now. You're not getting the same player. You may get a good player, and having 2 brothers would be cool, but it's horrible asset management for quite a stupid reason.
Value really favors Habs, but with his surgeries, and the fact that he’d be playing away from Johnny, the Flames could be big winners here and should consider this.
Then trade one of their d-men for a 1C
Because he was playing through injuries, none of the surguries are cause for concern and the guy you quoted is also clueless when he talks about Monahan without Gaudreau, Monahan has produced without Gaudreau, Gaudreau however has not really produced without Monahan.Are the surgeries a cause for concern? Why so many in such a short timespan?
Because he was playing through injuries, none of the surguries are cause for concern and the guy you quoted is also clueless when he talks about Monahan without Gaudreau, Monahan has produced without Gaudreau, Gaudreau however has not really produced without Monahan.