I think one of Allen or Primeau get moved by the end of November, depending on what teams are looking for. Regardless, it's becoming clearer that Monty will become the true #1 while our next batch of goalie prospects come through the pipeline.
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #85 - Offseason Editon
- Thread starter Lafleurs Guy
- Start date
- Status
MTL has to trade for Cozens or Thompson : as soon as BUF tardes a top center to a team they win the stanley cup. Small sample but worth a shot 
26Mats
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2018
- 32,425
- 24,913
I bet Hughes is trying to trade a goalie, but he doesn't like the offers.
He may only be trying to trade Primeau. But I would also trade Allen and see how Montembault and Primeau can do.
But I do think it's a good idea to play Primeau to make sure he's not a complete disaster still. For now, given there are usually 3 games per week, I would give each goalie a game. Tell them at the start of the week. Let them prepare mentally, study the opposition's shooters, etc...
There was some pundits talk about that last week (I think Friedman?) and apparently the teams in need of goalies are just waiting for the teams with 3 up to waive one to take their pick for free. It's a game of chicken to see who cracks first.
The real issue is that the Habs probably don't want to have Dobes as the recall in case of injuries, but they are 100% losing Primeau to waivers. So their best bet is to trade Allen or Monty and get an old two-way AHL vet goalie as a return + some pick(s).
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
The best is to trade Allen only. Montembault is a keeper and Primeau might be nhl ready. Losing him would be retrospect disaster. Primeau might have future value more than we think. Allen is the "tradable one" for now if we exclude Monty.
To bad we can't make a combo Allen + JA for something decent in return. Habs have zero value players on the market right now.
The return will be a cap dump and MTL won't sent Ylonen along because EDM has negative cap space right now.
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 10,439
- 10,707
Edmonton badly needs forward depth and would love to move Campbell's contract. We can bury Campbell in Laval and save money while doing so over the course of the next four years. Campbell would also be a little cheaper to buy out if that is the route that HuGo choose to take.
That is the base of the deal and perhaps there could be tinkering from both sides but there seemingly is sound logic for both sides to consider such a trade. Edmonton might want to buy out Campbell but not likely until 2 more years come off of his contract and those are two years where their window with McDavid and Draisaitl can not be wasted.
That is the base of the deal and perhaps there could be tinkering from both sides but there seemingly is sound logic for both sides to consider such a trade. Edmonton might want to buy out Campbell but not likely until 2 more years come off of his contract and those are two years where their window with McDavid and Draisaitl can not be wasted.
ArtPeur
Have a Snickers
- Mar 30, 2010
- 13,680
- 11,417
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 10,439
- 10,707
Gallagher is playing well, Campbell is a boat anchor contract
salbutera
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2019
- 13,946
- 14,989
Gallagher is contributing to teams success, this would be a terrible move - right now he’s the clear Bill Masterton winner
Last edited:
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 10,439
- 10,707
HuGo would trade him for a bag of pucks if they could. The fact that he is playing well right now is exactly why you trade him and get his albatross of a contract out of here. They will never send him to Laval and this is their opportunity to get out from under almost half of his cap hit because they can bury 1.15 M in Laval with Campbell as ell as saving 1.5 M per season over the next 4 years.
Gallagher is a negative asset and you have to strike before he becomes impossible to move. Anointing him the Masterton trophy winner 1/6th of the way into the season and using that as a reason to not dump his horrific contract is outrageous to say the least. He is not a part of the future and is one of the worst assets on the club....you do not hold on to players like this if you have a chance to get rid of them. That is just awful asset management.
Last edited:
salbutera
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2019
- 13,946
- 14,989
Zegras / Kent Johnson types are negative assets … they don’t help teams momentum towards winning culture, only provide occasional individual bling with lots of negative shifts that contribute to teams losing
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 10,439
- 10,707
You think that Gallagher is more valuable than Zegras or Johnson.....? You do know that Gallagher is signed to more term at more money than both of them right??? Do you not understand the effect of term and money on a players value?
Frankenheimer
Sir, this is an Arber
This kind of sounds like the smartest guy in the room move you’re always critiquing.
salbutera
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2019
- 13,946
- 14,989
Culture wise absolutely, talent is great but if it can’t be harnessed & molded to a team format and player only wants to individualize it …. Serves no purpose to the team game that hockey is
There’s a reason both players don’t play much… refusal to shift from individualization to team philosophy
Grate n Colorful Oz
Hutson Hawk
Get rid of that contract ASAP! W T F H
We aren't making the playoffs.
By all means let's try to find a sucker for Gallagher before he turns back into a pumpkin, but I don't really see what's in it for us.
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 10,439
- 10,707
Hughes would trade Gallagher in a heartbeat for either one of these guys and would be up all night partying and revelling in his thievery.
Like I pointed out, it creates 2.65 M in cap room over the next 4 years and opens a roster spot as unlike Gallagher, Campbell can be buried in Laval.
Grate n Colorful Oz
Hutson Hawk
Frankenheimer
Sir, this is an Arber
The contract coming back is not great either. You’re saving 1.5 million per year for a player that provides nothing. I’d rather pay 1.5million more for a player that offers something.
Get rid of that contract ASAP! W T F H
We aren't making the playoffs.
salbutera
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2019
- 13,946
- 14,989
Did he tell you that? I’m not sure they would or MSL would allow for it ..
Don’t get me wrong, every player has a price but Campbell is not the return HuGo would even consider remotely dealing Gallagher for IMO
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2003
- 10,439
- 10,707
Nether player has any relevance to the ultimate goal of the organization and Gallagher's contract is significantly more detrimental to the process than Campbell's contract is.
Nobody is going to give you anything of value for Gallagher, you can't actually believe that.......right? You are entirely missing the point here.
BehindTheTimes
Registered User
- Jun 24, 2018
- 7,151
- 9,448
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: ECF: Game 4 - New York Rangers @ Florida Panthers, 8pm ET, ESPN- Latest: Shesterkybomb
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - ASSINIBOIA RACE 5 - WinnipegWagers: 3Staked: $366.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - ASSINIBOIA RACE 7 - WinnipegWagers: 3Staked: $316.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
French Open - Women's Sofia Kenin vs Caroline GarciaWagers: 7Staked: $4,907.00Event closes- Updated:
-
French Open - Women's Jelena Ostapenko vs Clara TausonWagers: 3Staked: $1,125.00Event closes- Updated: