Prospect Info: Ryan Poehling - Part 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

abo9

Registered User
Jun 25, 2017
9,082
7,176
As per Matthias Brunet, Jason Botterill wanted 3rd Overall, Danault and Poehling in exchange of O’Reilly.

I think we can understand why MB said no.

With the power of hindsights why should I "understand why MB said no"? The one I'd be most worried is KK, but ROR would have addressed a need thats 30 years old - big, legit 1st line C - in his prime!
Right now I'm more set on a rebuild so I'm not "super" interested, but I could see an argument for making the trade.
 

HOPE

Goal Caufield!
Jun 30, 2011
7,336
5,229
Montreal
People are so quick at wanting to get rid of prospect, Poehling is big, skates well, good vision, we have the luxery to take our time with him in Laval and being exempted from the expansion draft. Not saying he’s untouchable or don’t trade him but we realy don’t have to... at this point his value isn’t high, you still have an other full year where if he doesn’t step up he pretty much has the same value. He could take a huge step.
If a deal makes sense, let’s say for a position of need with a similar prospect in the same situation, go for it ex: RP for Puljujarvi
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
People are so quick at wanting to get rid of prospect, Poehling is big, skates well, good vision, we have the luxery to take our time with him in Laval and being exempted from the expansion draft. Not saying he’s untouchable or don’t trade him but we realy don’t have to... at this point his value isn’t high, you still have an other full year where if he doesn’t step up he pretty much has the same value. He could take a huge step.
If a deal makes sense, let’s say for a position of need with a similar prospect in the same situation, go for it ex: RP for Puljujarvi

People are suggesting moving prospects in order to improve. Nothing wrong with that.
 

FLHabs

Send all your underacheiving prospects!!
Feb 18, 2017
1,982
3,196
I really believe Poehling has such a short leash with some fans because he's a Trump supporter. Who cares about his politics man, there's no need to get rid of him just because, he has no value right now. I mean Hudon is still part of this team after so many years of not being able to really crack the line up and I don't hear people wanting to just get rid of him. There's absolutely nothing to gain from shipping Poehling out of town and much more to win if he can put it all together. I'd be happy if he becomes a 40 to 50 point middle six power winger with speed and I still believe he can get there.
 

ChesterNimitz

governed by the principle of calculated risk
Jul 4, 2002
5,010
10,107
People are suggesting moving prospects in order to improve. Nothing wrong with that.
It depends on the state of your team. Do you trade a prospect for a marginal improvement? That would be a regressive step. However, if your team is on the cusp of contending, them such a transaction: trading a future asset for an immediate asset that may push you over the top, is good business and asset management. A classic case of the latter is Montreal's acquisition of Frank Mahovlich in 1971. Without Mahovlich, Montreal doesn't beat Boston in that classic 7 games series. An example of the former was the trade of Gomez for McDonagh. While the trade had short term immediate benefits for Montreal, McDonagh developed into a top 2 defenceman who is still playing at a high level a dozen years later.
 

admiralcadillac

Registered User
Oct 22, 2017
7,460
6,655
With the power of hindsights why should I "understand why MB said no"? The one I'd be most worried is KK, but ROR would have addressed a need thats 30 years old - big, legit 1st line C - in his prime!
Right now I'm more set on a rebuild so I'm not "super" interested, but I could see an argument for making the trade.

Not a knock on the player, but if by your standards ROR is "big" so is our entire forward group. He's 5'11.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
It depends on the state of your team. Do you trade a prospect for a marginal improvement? That would be a regressive step. However, if your team is on the cusp of contending, them such a transaction: trading a future asset for an immediate asset that may push you over the top, is good business and asset management. A classic case of the latter is Montreal's acquisition of Frank Mahovlich in 1971. Without Mahovlich, Montreal doesn't beat Boston in that classic 7 games series. An example of the former was the trade of Gomez for McDonagh. While the trade had short term immediate benefits for Montreal, McDonagh developed into a top 2 defenceman who is still playing at a high level a dozen years later.

We can go through a ton of trades involving prospects who didn't pan out too.
It all depends on the return, nobody wants Poehling traded for a 3rd liner.
 

BehindTheTimes

Registered User
Jun 24, 2018
7,063
9,287
His skill is on the low end but his size and skating package is what we need. Poehling needs to find his niche and that takes time for a player like this. He might end up a Josh Anderson type? Habs need to play him on wing IMO.
I don’t think you really need guys whose skill level is on the low end. We will see, I have been wrong plenty of times before. I don’t have any confidence this guy is an NHLer in the future. I hope to be proven wrong. If he is, I suspect it will be the type that bounces around from club to club in a limited 4th line role. We shall see.
 

azcanuck

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
3,789
2,783
chandler az
Players go through trials and tribulations and he's still a young player. But now is his time. He's older and has some experience. I've never understood how he was penciled in as a big point producer, he wasnt even in college.
But a solid third line winger with size and speed. This team is desperate for that. He probably has limited trade value anyway.
I think he turns the corner this year.
 

SpezNc2

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
1,636
175
Would have been Poehling and Caufield cause the 3rd OA would have been top 10 or lottery protected. If we had ROR, probably not the 15th pick either cause we would have been a better team? Lets say we had Danault and ROR. We probably don't trade Patch and draft KK right? Things would be different. Would be ROR and Tkachuk or Hughes?

What do you like more?

Poehling, Caufield, Suzuki, Norlinder, Tatar, Kotkaniemi
vs
ROR, Patch, Tkachuk or Hughes

as per Matthias Brunet, the ask was 3rd 2018, Danault, Poehling.

The story is not saying if MB counter with his 2019 Top 10 protected first round draft pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vachon23

SpezNc2

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
1,636
175
That's BS.
Just think about it for a second would ya? If you're the Sabres GM, what do you actually care about? Improving your team. Now you're trading ROR away so you want some picks and good prospects in return.
If Mtl gives you the best deal, why in the hell would you not move him there? Because he is oh-so-good that you absolutely do not want to face him? So your solution to that is take a lesser offer and be weaker?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.



Brunet's alleged demand is silliness. I'm not saying he made it up, he still has some journalistic integrity but there's no way the Sabres had a hardline on this offer. Maybe they opened the bidding with that offer, like any negotiation you start high, the counter was probably low, then you meet somewhere in the middle or close to it.

It makes no sense to go from 3OV-Danault-Poehling to the crap they got from Stl.

We don’t know what was Bergevin’s counter offer. We don’t know how hard was botterill on getting the 3rd OV. Me too, I find it a bit odd if he was hardcore on getting the 3rd.

what we know is that MB was highly interested in ROR but there is no leak on his actual offer but in insight, I would not surprise me if MTL’s offer ended being better than STL’s because quite frankly the deal did not pan out for BUF’s. Not that hard to beat.

there is a prime to trade within same division. Not saying no deal can be reach but this is not a myth.

I would totally prefer to take the best deal but quite frankly not all GM think that way. Why would you think that Dorion put a clause in the Karlsson’s deal to get a first rounder if traded back in the east.

If I am a GM, I only care about MY team.
 

SpezNc2

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
1,636
175
I can buy we might have paid a bit more but I don't think it makes sense that Buffalo would hang up on anything less than 1st Poehling Danault and then accept a late first, 2 cap dumps, and a B prospect.

Good question. There is obviously a blank between 3rd, Poehling, Danault and the STL’s deal.

Lets just say botterill is not GM anymore.
 

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
We don’t know what was Bergevin’s counter offer. We don’t know how hard was botterill on getting the 3rd OV. Me too, I find it a bit odd if he was hardcore on getting the 3rd.
We dont know anything really other than what Buffalo got for him. Everything else is just rumors/speculations.

what we know is that MB was highly interested in ROR but there is no leak on his actual offer but in insight, I would not surprise me if MTL’s offer ended being better than STL’s because quite frankly the deal did not pan out for BUF’s. Not that hard to beat.
You dont actually know if he was highly interested. You would need to know what he was willing to give up to see how motivated he was.
Bergevin wanted Aho here, but pretty much everyone knew his offer wasn't good enough. How does pretty much 100% of HF laughs at the offer, McGuire saying he received texts from other GMs saying “thats it” speaking of the offer, but Bergevin thinks its enough?
Was he super motivated then too?
there is a prime to trade within same division. Not saying no deal can be reach but this is not a myth.
Yes it is a myth. End of the day you go with the best offer you receive. That's all there is to it.
I would totally prefer to take the best deal but quite frankly not all GM think that way. Why would you think that Dorion put a clause in the Karlsson’s deal to get a first rounder if traded back in the east.

If I am a GM, I only care about MY team.
It was a conditional first rd pick and it's a FU to Wilson after he traded for Hoffman only to ship him back into Ottawa's division.
In no way shape or form does that mean a GM would skip on a better deal because within its division.
 

26Mats

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
31,736
24,115
They should try and make a power forward out of this guy, he has the body, skates well and can tip pucks... Let him drive the net and create havoc in the crease.

Definitely.

With a little luck on our part, and a lot of hard work on his part, he could become 17 to 25 goal guy.

Drives the net, picks up garbage, tips puck, etc...
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,917
East Coast
I don’t think you really need guys whose skill level is on the low end. We will see, I have been wrong plenty of times before. I don’t have any confidence this guy is an NHLer in the future. I hope to be proven wrong. If he is, I suspect it will be the type that bounces around from club to club in a limited 4th line role. We shall see.

Big year for Poehling, Brook, and others in our pool. Ylonen, Hillis, Norlinder, Harris, Struble, Primeau to name some others.

As far as Poehling? He just needs to stay hunger to improve and committed to the parts of the game the coach is trying to get him to focus on. He's got game and we lack big boys that skate well. I'll make my true judgement after his 2nd pro year. If he stalls again, it's troubling yes
 
  • Like
Reactions: dralaf

smirob

Registered User
Jun 2, 2014
4,864
991
I think if he cracks the lineup, he will be starting at LW...Assuming MB/CJ think Evans is our 4C going into next season, we need to move at least one LW for this to make any sense.
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,917
East Coast
People are so quick at wanting to get rid of prospect, Poehling is big, skates well, good vision, we have the luxery to take our time with him in Laval and being exempted from the expansion draft. Not saying he’s untouchable or don’t trade him but we realy don’t have to... at this point his value isn’t high, you still have an other full year where if he doesn’t step up he pretty much has the same value. He could take a huge step.
If a deal makes sense, let’s say for a position of need with a similar prospect in the same situation, go for it ex: RP for Puljujarvi

I like that trade but Poehling for Puljujarvi is not a good move in terms of the expansion draft. Poehling is exempt and Puljujarvi is not.

I agree about Poehling. Need more patience
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,917
East Coast
I think if he cracks the lineup, he will be starting at LW...Assuming MB/CJ think Evans is our 4C going into next season, we need to move at least one LW for this to make any sense.

Not really. Both Lehkonen and Byron can play RW. I rather we bring in a goal scoring winger with size but if we make no moves and sign all of our RFA's... There is room for Poehling to play with Evans or fight for that 4C role.

Tatar / Danault / Gallagher
Drouin / Suzuki / Armia
Domi / KK / Lehkonen
Poehling / Evans / Byron
Weal
 

Habs 4 Life

No Excuses
Mar 30, 2005
41,015
4,793
Montreal
I would trade Poehling in a heartbeat if it helped in getting a Laine or Ehlers to Montreal.

Domi/Danault + Kulak + Poehling + #16
I trade for Ehlers or Laine no problem.
Hell I'd eventeven in there a Juulsen since they need Def.

Then I sign a 3rd pair veteran D to play and help Romanov and we are good to go!

Absolutely, with the play from KK and Suzuki we saw these past playoffs, I think it's time to move a guy like Poehling especially to get that much needed offensive type player need we are lacking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->