Proposal: Trade Proposal Thread Part 7

[hototogisu]

Bjugstad + Jagr for DD + Shaw + _?_ (prospect/pick)?

Yikes, seriously? Sergachev is probably the only thing we have that comes even a little bit close to bridging the gulf in value between Bjugstad/Jagr and Desharnais/Shaw.

 

[CanadienShark]

I like the idea of:



Max Pacioretty
David Desharnais
Nathan Beaulieu



Mikkel Boedker
Marc-Edouard Vlasic
Pick/Prospect

Habs still fill out their top 6 LW and Solidify the defense at the same time. The salary is pretty much even as well. Seems like a potential fit. Each roster replaces someone at each position with someone else not leaving a hole somewhere.

For the Habs they would still need to find a top 6 to replace Byron on the top line but it would look like:

Byron Galchenyuk Radulov
Boedker Plekanec Gallagher
Lehkonen Danault Shaw
Carr Mitchell Flynn
Hudon

Emelin Weber
Vlasic Petry
Markov Pateryn
Barberio Redmond

Price
Montoya


Pacioretty Thornton Pavelski
Marleau Couture Ward
Wingels Desharnais Donskoi
Nieto Karlsson Tierney
Haley Labanc

Martin Burns
Beaulieu Braun
Dillon Schlemko
Demelo

Jones
Dell

Hertl would replace Ward and Ward would move down to the bottom 6 once he returns.

SJ would pass. We're not desperate to get rid of Boedker.

We probably wouldn't trade Vlasic for Pacioretty + Beaulieu not for lack of value, but because of our team makeup. We need Vlasic big time. Then we're not moving Boedker + pick/prospect for Desharnais. In the very unlikely circumstance that we decide to blow it up, Sergachev is the centrepiece the Sharks would want for Vlasic.

 

[A Loyal Dog]

Yikes, seriously? Sergachev is probably the only thing we have that comes even a little bit close to bridging the gulf in value between Bjugstad/Jagr and Desharnais/Shaw.

How about a 1st 2017 + prospect?

Considering Florida is not being smart lately, lol.

 

[TCIH]

Ryan Strome seems like a good option

I'd love to see him in Montreal. I don't know if the Isles would move him within the conference, but he does appear unsettled in Brooklyn.

 

[FerrisRox]

This isn't spousal support. Lol.

They're on the hook for that for 2 years left on his contract reguardless.

Actually the Panthers could trade Gallant - and the remaining two years on his contract - to the Canadiens, so his point stands.

 

[Brainiac]

Can't terminate his contract. He'll get every penny for the next two years unless he chooses to rescind it which is unlikely.

What the hell are you talking about? Any contract can be terminated by mutual agreement. Especially if it helps both parties moving forward. And it happens all the time with coaches when they're fired with term left and then hired elsewhere.

You really think the Panthers would pay millions just to keep Gallant off the market? That's nonsense.

 

[Brainiac]

Actually the Panthers could trade Gallant - and the remaining two years on his contract - to the Canadiens, so his point stands.

Yeah, I think I remember hearing about that. Like, the new CBA allows coaches' contracts to be included in trades. But it's relatively new, isn't it?

And anyway, I think the point is moot. If a team, probably Vegas, wants to hire Gallant as head coach next year, it could happen. Like I wrote above: contract terminated by mutual agreement.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Yeah, I think I remember hearing about that. Like, the new CBA allows coaches' contracts to be included in trades. But it's relatively new, isn't it?

And anyway, I think the point is moot. If a team, probably Vegas, wants to hire Gallant as head coach next year, it could happen. Like I wrote above: contract terminated by mutual agreement.

Perhaps Gallant could be hired as 2nd Associate Coach and then seen as "exposed" thereby preempting any other meaningful draft of any significant cost to the team, if Vegas elects to make him an offer.

 

[Brainiac]

Perhaps Gallant could be hired as 2nd Associate Coach and then seen as "exposed" thereby preempting any other meaningful draft of any significant cost to the team, if Vegas elects to make him an offer.

I get the strategy behind it. But Molson would probably say no. I doubt the guy would spend millions for a late round pick.

 

[FerrisRox]

Yeah, I think I remember hearing about that. Like, the new CBA allows coaches' contracts to be included in trades. But it's relatively new, isn't it?

No, it's been around for decades.

In fact, the first round draft pick the Quebec Nordiques used to select Joe Sakic was not the result of one of their poor finishes in the late 80's, it was acquired from the New York Rangers via trade for head coach Michel Bergeron.

To add insult to injury, Bergeron was fired by the Rangers toward the end of his second season in New York and went right back behind the Nordiques bench.

 

[Brainiac]

No, it's been around for decades.

In fact, the first round draft pick the Quebec Nordiques used to select Joe Sakic was not the result of one of their poor finishes in the late 80's, it was acquired from the New York Rangers via trade for head coach Michel Bergeron.

To add insult to injury, Bergeron was fired by the Rangers toward the end of his second season in New York and went right back behind the Nordiques bench.

Yeah I've heard about these obviously.

Somehow, I thought it had been forbidden somewhere after one of the lockouts and brought back in the recent CBA.

 

[Sterling Archer]

What the hell are you talking about? Any contract can be terminated by mutual agreement. Especially if it helps both parties moving forward. And it happens all the time with coaches when they're fired with term left and then hired elsewhere.

You really think the Panthers would pay millions just to keep Gallant off the market? That's nonsense.

Read my post that you just quoted.

It's not mutual unless Gallant says it is. It's HIS decisions.

He's not voiding anything unless he gets an equally high paying job and they can settle it that way.

Bottom line, Panthers don't get a say in cancelling his contract.

 

[Brainiac]

Maybe you don't understand how contracts work. Panthers signed him to a 3 year deal worth $X that they are legally obliged to pay. If they fire him that does not void the contract. It's doesn't nullify it and they still owe him the money reguardless of anything else unless Gallant did something to void the contract and there's no indication that's why he was fired. Gallant lived up to his end of the deal and as such, he'll get paid the full amount of his contract whether he stays home or otherwise. Panthers have ZERO say in that.

The only way the Panthers won't pay him is, as I said in my previous post which you quoted, is if Gallant and Gallant alone rescinds his contract. Mutual agreement is if Gallant wants it terminated. That's what makes it mutual. Of course the Panthers don't want to pay him but they have to otherwise.

I don't know the exact stipulations in his contract but I'm sure that as an asset of the Panthers he'd have to do that to work for another club but that's HIS decision.

Not sure what you're not getting here. This isn't rocket science here, Brainiac.

Dude, come on. It happens all the time. With players, coaches etc.

When a team fires a coach, they let him talk to other teams (which wouldn't be the case if he was still working for them, obviously).

The guy is sitting at home, collecting his paychecks and if a good offer comes by, he calls back his former the team, saying he's willing to terminate the contract. Team obviously agree because they don't have to pay him anymore. I believe it might even be automatic, like there's a clause in the contract that says the contract is voided if the coach signs with another team after being fired.

They have plenty of clauses like that in these contracts. I believe the guys are not allowed to work for sports media without terminating the contract, too.

Gallant isn't likely to be sitting at home for the next two years.

I don't understand why you assume these contracts are like, 100% unbreakable under no circumstances??

 

[Sterling Archer]

Dude, come on. It happens all the time. With players, coaches etc.

When a team fires a coach, they let him talk to other teams (which wouldn't be the case if he was still working for them, obviously).

The guy is sitting at home, collecting his paychecks and if a good offer comes by, he calls back his former the team, saying he's willing to terminate the contract. Team obviously agree because they don't have to pay him anymore. I believe it might even be automatic, like there's a clause in the contract that says the contract is voided if the coach signs with another team after being fired.

They have plenty of clauses like that in these contracts. I believe the guys are not allowed to work for sports media without terminating the contract, too.

Gallant isn't likely to be sitting at home for the next two years.

I don't understand why you assume these contracts are like, 100% unbreakable under no circumstances??

Dude. Read my post that you quoted. The answers
You seek was there all along.

I never said the contract couldn't be broken. I said it up to Gallant to rescind it. Florida has no say in the matter and they will continue to pay it until Gallant says otherwise.

 

[Brainiac]

Dude. Read my post that you quoted. The answers
You seek was there all along.

I never said the contract couldn't be broken. I said it up to Gallant to rescind it. Florida has no say in the matter and they will continue to pay it until Gallant says otherwise.

Maybe my first post was not totally clear to you?

I never wrote that the team can unilaterally terminate the contract. I just said the contract can be terminated, for example by mutual agreement.

 

[Brainiac]

What is it about that forum that literally eliminates cognitive capabilities? And why am I such a glutton for punishment in continuing to visit said forum??

Huge anti-Habs bias on the main board, IMO.

 

[Runner77]

Huge anti-Habs bias on the main board, IMO.

I've seen Habs fans show the same type of bias against other teams' fans. If we're going to blame other fans for stuff, maybe we should refrain from brash and pretentious posts and threads of our own. Just sayin'.

 

[Brainiac]

I've seen Habs fans show the same type of bias against other teams' fans. If we're going to blame other fans for stuff, maybe we should refrain from brash and pretentious posts and threads of our own. Just sayin'.

Maybe our mods are doing an incredible job here, but I usually find that we are polite towards other fans when they're visiting our board. And it's usually possible to have a civilized conversation. Try to do that on the Sens or Bruins board just for fun.

On the main board, the matter is a little more complex. There's usually a bias against the biggest fanbases. So the Leafs and us. Thing is, Leafs have been bad for as long as this board exists. So when you write that they suck, it's factual.

When you write that the Habs suck and that our players are all bad, it just shows bias.

So we might not be the team against which there's most bias, but our recent relative success makes it more apparent that there is a bias.

 

[Belial]

Why we didn't signed Perron again? What happened there? He's doing great this year...

Perron -AG-Radulov would be dynamite!

 

[Runner77]

Maybe our mods are doing an incredible job here, but I usually find that we are polite towards other fans when they're visiting our board. And it's usually possible to have a civilized conversation. Try to do that on the Sens or Bruins board just for fun.

Fenway does a great job as part of the Bruins' board -- I'm sure he'd step in if someone were out of line. I don't go to the Sens board, so can't comment.

On the main board, the matter is a little more complex. There's usually a bias against the biggest fanbases. So the Leafs and us. Thing is, Leafs have been bad for as long as this board exists. So when you write that they suck, it's factual.

Unfortunately, it's beyond historical records. I've seen our fans post some incredibly braggadocious and pretentious stuff. A relatively recent thread that comes to mind is the one on the main boards posted by one of our fans who claimed the Habs would win the Stanley Cup this year. How endearing.

When you write that the Habs suck and that our players are all bad, it just shows bias.

I agree the comment is incongruent with the team's performance this season. However, I don't think our fans are immune from like excesses in their depictions of other teams, as far as I've been able to determine. Just my opinion.

 

[FerrisRox]

Maybe our mods are doing an incredible job here, but I usually find that we are polite towards other fans when they're visiting our board. And it's usually possible to have a civilized conversation. Try to do that on the Sens or Bruins board just for fun.

On the main board, the matter is a little more complex. There's usually a bias against the biggest fanbases. So the Leafs and us. Thing is, Leafs have been bad for as long as this board exists. So when you write that they suck, it's factual.

When you write that the Habs suck and that our players are all bad, it just shows bias.

So we might not be the team against which there's most bias, but our recent relative success makes it more apparent that there is a bias.

I think it has a lot more to do with really ill-informed Canadiens fans saying laughably ignorant and often obnoxious things than it does to a "bias" against the Canadiens.

 

[DAChampion]

A lot of fanbases think the main board is biased against them.

 

[Brainiac]

A lot of fanbases think the main board is biased against them.

Well, yeah. Like all the guys suffering from an inferiority complex because they live in a small town with a crappy team. Of course they're gonna imagine there's a bias against them. In reality it's just that we don't care about them.

 

[Runner77]

Well, yeah. Like all the guys suffering from an inferiority complex because they live in a small town with a crappy team. Of course they're gonna imagine there's a bias against them. In reality it's just that we don't care about them.

That's the Maim Board spirit.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Maybe my first post was not totally clear to you?

I never wrote that the team can unilaterally terminate the contract. I just said the contract can be terminated, for example by mutual agreement.

Well you said that is hiring him would mean Fla can stop paying him, insinuating that the contract would be terminated without further payment by Fla and that's not necessarily true.

Team can continue to pay out his contract even if he coaches another team, they can give him a lump sum payment that's negotiated if he starts up with another club to level the compensation to what he was gettting, etc.

It's not necessarily as clear cut as he has to cancel his contract to get another job.