Proposal: Trade Proposal Thread Part XIV

[Kriss E]

Great. You are back to spitting out knee jerk reactions where you end up wrong. Like "We will for sure be picking in the bottom 5 again this year". When I tried to talk and show you my thoughts and how we would not be in the bottom 5, you came back with this style approach like your post reply above.

When you going to learn? Waste of time trying to have a conversation with you. You should of learned a while ago that digging your foot in the sand and not being flexible in your plan as time moves forward likely turns into how you look today with your dooms day predictions to start the year.

I never said we will for sure pick in top 5, I said we were a bottom team, and the only way we could entertain your idea of being a bubble team is if we had monster years from some, which we had.

Knee jerk? How's the ''wait and see'' plan worked for you?...

 

[Habs Halifax]

I never said we will for sure pick in top 5, I said we were a bottom team, and the only way we could entertain your idea of being a bubble team is if we had monster years from some, which we had.

Knee jerk? How's the ''wait and see'' plan worked for you?...

I read the bolded part and got a chuckle. I think you need to own what you said and how you jumped on my back for calling the Habs a fringe wild card team at best heading into the season. I've giving you a hard time today cause you had no problem giving me a hard time about it then. Yes, you did say it.

The wait and see plan looks good to me today vs how it looked 12 months ago? Don't you think? Do you not believe in our youth and prospect pool?

 

[ArtPeur]

The wait and see plan looks good to me today vs how it looked 12 months ago? Don't you think? Do you not believe in our youth and prospect pool?

I'll pitch in and say I don't. I remember seeing another poster saying that it's been 15 years+ that people say we had great drafts and an even greater prospect pool. Yet how many elite, great or just good enough players have we got over the years?

The poster was also referencing the old hockey's future website where the Habs were almost always a top 5-10 across the league for their prospect pool.

Sadly, I don't really believe in our prospect pool, not until they make the NHL.

Edit. MB has been waiting too much at times, trading young players/prospects when they have low value.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Would you trade our 2019 1st and Juulsen for Sergachev and Callahan?

I wouldn’t trade Juulsen for sergachev straight up. In case anyone hasn’t noticed Sergachev isn’t very good defensively. He’d be destroyed by the fans and media with 2 years.

 

[Sorinth]

The only vet I am worrying about decline is Weber. I think he has two decent seasons left and then who knows. Price is going to be good for longer than most realize. I'm also not going to be desperate to make any moves.

We have no choice, we have to let our youth grow and improve (both on the current roster and our prospects). I think Price and Gallagher are the two vets to lead this team if Weber is gone after the next 2 or 3 seasons.

We do have a choice, we either make moves to fill the holes while guys like Weber are still on top of their game, or we blow it all up and rebuild with the youth.

But take me through your thought process about what happens in 3 years when Weber declines? Because we are currently missing a top-pairing guy, when Weber declines, we will be missing two. Expecting two top-pairing defenceman from our prospect pool is a recipe for failure.

 

[Habs Halifax]

We do have a choice, we either make moves to fill the holes while guys like Weber are still on top of their game, or we blow it all up and rebuild with the youth.

But take me through your thought process about what happens in 3 years when Weber declines? Because we are currently missing a top-pairing guy, when Weber declines, we will be missing two. Expecting two top-pairing defenceman from our prospect pool is a recipe for failure.

I don't see it one way or another. We don't have pending UFA's until 2 more seasons. We have time to decide and to further evaluate how good our youth is. However, I'm open to any option that makes our team better and does not mortgage the future.

Our roster as it stands right now today looks promising. IMO, I think we need to give them a chance to see how much they can grow in the next season or two. Tough decisions need to be made in 21

 

[Sorinth]

Petry Can’t play LD. When Webber was traded, Petry moved to LD during some practices...didn't work at all.

As a general rule the puck mover is better on his natural side. So out of Karlsson, Petry, Weber, it makes the most sense to have Weber on his off side.

 

[HOPE]

I wouldn’t trade Juulsen for sergachev straight up. In case anyone hasn’t noticed Sergachev isn’t very good defensively. He’d be destroyed by the fans and media with 2 years.

While i never liked Sergachev and said i liked Mete more than him on draft days. If you can trade Juulsen for Serg thats an absolute no brainer. But i feel you with his defensive play, i hate with passion the way he freezes and his static footwork in the Dzone.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Would you trade our 2019 1st and Juulsen for Sergachev and Callahan?

You don't need to include the 1st. Change that to a 2nd. How many teams are going to be able to be a fit for Tampa in terms of helping them save cap space and offering a potential top 4D on the right side? Not many besides the Habs.

I've been paying attention to this and I have not seen one team interested in Sergachev and offered a RD prospect who is NHL ready like Juulsen.

 

[HOPE]

As a general rule the puck mover is better on his natural side. So out of Karlsson, Petry, Weber, it makes the most sense to have Weber on his off side.

While that could make sense as Weber would always be ready offside for his onetimer, he has poor puck control and mix that with his poor acceleration, having to pick up the puck in the Ozone on his backhand along the board could be disastrous haha, i wouldn’t be opposed to give it a try but i already see opponents abusing pressure on his side.

 

[Habs Halifax]

As a general rule the puck mover is better on his natural side. So out of Karlsson, Petry, Weber, it makes the most sense to have Weber on his off side.

Good point. Worth trying out various options. Question is does Karlsson consider the Habs and for how much

 

[Sorinth]

I don't see it one way or another. We don't have pending UFA's until 2 more seasons. We have time to decide and to further evaluate how good our youth is. However, I'm open to any option that makes our team better and does not mortgage the future.

Our roster as it stands right now today looks promising. IMO, I think we need to give them a chance to see how much they can grow in the next season or two. Tough decisions need to be made in 21

I had said back in 2012, our window was Markov's play once he declined/left our window would close. And that's exactly what happened, we took a huge step back. It's the same with Weber, except we aren't even in a position to compete, but once he's gone either through decline in play/trade/retirement/buyout then we will take another huge step back.

And you didn't really answer the question, what happens to the team in 3 years when you said Weber will have declined? Because it seems like your plan is to hope our prospects/young players fill out spots 1, 2 & 4.

 

[Sorinth]

While that could make sense as Weber would always be ready offside for his onetimer, he has poor puck control and mix that with his poor acceleration, having to pick up the puck in the Ozone on his backhand along the board could be disastrous haha, i wouldn’t be opposed to give it a try but i already see opponents abusing pressure on his side.

I wouldn't be concerned about picking up the puck in the o-zone. He's already doing that on the PP. The bigger concern is the extra half second it takes in the defensive zone when you need to transition the puck quickly. However since Weber sticks to short passes it's probably not too bad.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I had said back in 2012, our window was Markov's play once he declined/left our window would close. And that's exactly what happened, we took a huge step back. It's the same with Weber, except we aren't even in a position to compete, but once he's gone either through decline in play/trade/retirement/buyout then we will take another huge step back.

And you didn't really answer the question, what happens to the team in 3 years when you said Weber will have declined? Because it seems like your plan is to hope our prospects/young players fill out spots 1, 2 & 4.

Tinordi and Beaulieu disappointing was a huge setback. However, have they ever trended as high as Brook or Romanov in their draft plus development years? They compare more to guys like Juulsen and Fleury IMO in terms of draft plus development years.

We have no choice but to try to replace Weber in 3 or 4 years time. Either with our prospects or with UFA. Do I think Brook and Juulsen will easily replace Weber and Petry for sure? No. Does that mean I'm going to mortgage the future to try to win now? No.

There is no easy for sure road to go down that guarantees success.... with or without Weber. The key here should be to keep adding talent around the youth we have and to keep monitoring how good they are moving forward.

I don't expect any GM to turn our team into a contender through trades or UFA signings.

 

[Sterling Archer]

While i never liked Sergachev and said i liked Mete more than him on draft days. If you can trade Juulsen for Serg thats an absolute no brainer. But i feel you with his defensive play, i hate with passion the way he freezes and his static footwork in the Dzone.

Glad we see eye to eye on Sergachev and his D zone coverage. That being said, he’ll be a better offensive D than Juulsen but I think Juulsen has a better chance of being a better total package D than sergachev ever could be. Even if Sergachev is better, I don’t think he’d be a 1st (15th) better overall. Add to that we traded him away once and I highly doubt we trade for him back, particularly at the cost outlined in that trade proposal.

 

[HOPE]

Glad we see eye to eye on Sergachev and his D zone coverage. That being said, he’ll be a better offensive D than Juulsen but I think Juulsen has a better chance of being a better total package D than sergachev ever could be. Even if Sergachev is better, I don’t think he’d be a 1st (15th) better overall. Add to that we traded him away once and I highly doubt we trade for him back, particularly at the cost outlined in that trade proposal.

oh i would no way in hell add the 15th OV. We need that pick going forward more than people think we do. I have saying that about Sergachev since day one. i even said since day one that i thought Mete would be a better overall Damn than Sergachev and still think the same, Mete has much more offensive than most think, we will see it soon enough. Mete's floor to me is a 30pts top 4 Dman with great Dzone coverage and amazing stick work!

 

[Sorinth]

Tinordi and Beaulieu disappointing was a huge setback. However, have they ever trended as high as Brook or Romanov in their draft plus development years? They compare more to guys like Juulsen and Fleury IMO in terms of draft plus development years.

Well back in March 2013, Beaulieu was ranked as the 24th best prospect in the NHL
Top 50: Brodin leads middle group in 2013 Spring prospect rankings - Hockey's Future

And I can't find it now but there were rankings where Tinordi was in the 60s I think. I haven't seen a ranking that has Brook or Romanov in the top-100 (Though I haven't looked very hard). So yes they trended as high and even higher then Brook and Romanov.

We have no choice but to try to replace Weber in 3 or 4 years time. Either with our prospects or with UFA. Do I think Brook and Juulsen will easily replace Weber and Petry for sure? No. Does that mean I'm going to mortgage the future to try to win now? No.

There is no easy for sure road to go down that guarantees success.... with or without Weber. The key here should be to keep adding talent around the youth we have and to keep monitoring how good they are moving forward.

I don't expect any GM to turn our team into a contender through trades or UFA signings.

You say you don't want to mortgage the future, but what future are you mortgaging? The one where our prospect will have a hard time replacing Weber/Petry? I mean if that's the case then we have no future because Weber/Petry isn't even good enough, so if our prospect will have a hard time simply matching them, there's almost no chance of the team actually getting better.

If you don't think we can win by trading youth for vets and going for it with Weber, then we should do the opposite and trade vets for youth. It's the middle path that is nonsensical, you get the worst of both worlds.

 

[Scriptor]

Well back in March 2013, Beaulieu was ranked as the 24th best prospect in the NHL
Top 50: Brodin leads middle group in 2013 Spring prospect rankings - Hockey's Future

And I can't find it now but there were rankings where Tinordi was in the 60s I think. I haven't seen a ranking that has Brook or Romanov in the top-100 (Though I haven't looked very hard). So yes they trended as high and even higher then Brook and Romanov.



You say you don't want to mortgage the future, but what future are you mortgaging? The one where our prospect will have a hard time replacing Weber/Petry? I mean if that's the case then we have no future because Weber/Petry isn't even good enough, so if our prospect will have a hard time simply matching them, there's almost no chance of the team actually getting better.

If you don't think we can win by trading youth for vets and going for it with Weber, then we should do the opposite and trade vets for youth. It's the middle path that is nonsensical, you get the worst of both worlds.

I'm all for trading some veterans for youth, but I wouldn't go with an all out approach because I believe that veterans are needed to help rear the younger players, whether by allowing the coach to ice a competitive team while he gives younger players more sheltered minutes as required, or as a plain and simple role model to aspire towards being.

I'd move Petry after one more year where Brook and Fleury would have matured a full (another full) season in the AHL. I'd keep Weber as the captain and as a mentor for the younger Ds, but Montreal needs to acquire a young, quality LHD for this to be optimized as a plan.

I'd also trade Shaw and, perhaps, even Byron, one this year and the other the following year as youngsters join the lineup; Poehling as of next season and Suzuki the one after that.

There are options that are more than doing nothing, yet not wholesale to create too much of a distortion for the team environment.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Well back in March 2013, Beaulieu was ranked as the 24th best prospect in the NHL
Top 50: Brodin leads middle group in 2013 Spring prospect rankings - Hockey's Future

And I can't find it now but there were rankings where Tinordi was in the 60s I think. I haven't seen a ranking that has Brook or Romanov in the top-100 (Though I haven't looked very hard). So yes they trended as high and even higher then Brook and Romanov.



You say you don't want to mortgage the future, but what future are you mortgaging? The one where our prospect will have a hard time replacing Weber/Petry? I mean if that's the case then we have no future because Weber/Petry isn't even good enough, so if our prospect will have a hard time simply matching them, there's almost no chance of the team actually getting better.

If you don't think we can win by trading youth for vets and going for it with Weber, then we should do the opposite and trade vets for youth. It's the middle path that is nonsensical, you get the worst of both worlds.

Habs were ranked near dead last in prospect rankings heading into the 17/18 season. Did this mean anything? Are you saying you were just as high with Beaulieu and Tinordi vs Romanov or Brook today? Tinordi and Beaulieu is more like Juulsen and Fleury to me. Not the same hype and we have quantity working in our favor all across the board. You can keep trying if you wish. It don't measure up.

I already explained the Weber situation and the road we need to take based on our current youth and coming prospects. I understand the approach the Habs are taking and I support it. It's year by year evaluation and I have said this time and time again. Trading vets for futures where we get 15-31 range 1st round picks and spare prospects is not something I'm interested in. If a team wants to offer pry away value for some of our vets, I'm listening.

If we had pending UFA's, I'd see your point. But we don't. The next 12 months will reveal a lot in terms of our current NHL youth and how much they can improve and how our prospects do. Especially the ones turning pro. Brook, Poehling, Suzuki, Primeau, Teasdale.

The better time to make a move with Petry, Weber, Tatar, Byron, Drouin is next deadline or the 2020 off season. Or at the 2021 deadline.

 

[EquabaleAce]

Habs EOP suggested moving Juulsen to LA for Kale Clague.
Would you make that deal with the surplus we have on the right side?
Mete - Weber
Kulak - Petry
Reilly/Olofsson/Klague - Fleury/Folin

With Clague moving up with Petry as he becomes more acclimated and Kulak being a 3rd pair mainstay with Fleury

Edit: It just dawned on me that we would have a very healthy d with all the kale

 

[Sterling Archer]

oh i would no way in hell add the 15th OV. We need that pick going forward more than people think we do. I have saying that about Sergachev since day one. i even said since day one that i thought Mete would be a better overall Damn than Sergachev and still think the same, Mete has much more offensive than most think, we will see it soon enough. Mete's floor to me is a 30pts top 4 Dman with great Dzone coverage and amazing stick work!

Agreed!

 

[Sorinth]

Habs were ranked near dead last in prospect rankings heading into the 17/18 season. Did this mean anything? Are you saying you were just as high with Beaulieu and Tinordi vs Romanov or Brook today? Tinordi and Beaulieu is more like Juulsen and Fleury to me. Not the same hype and we have quantity working in our favor all across the board. You can keep trying if you wish. It don't measure up.

I already explained the Weber situation and the road we need to take based on our current youth and coming prospects. I understand the approach the Habs are taking and I support it. It's year by year evaluation and I have said this time and time again. Trading vets for futures where we get 15-31 range 1st round picks and spare prospects is not something I'm interested in. If a team wants to offer pry away value for some of our vets, I'm listening.

If we had pending UFA's, I'd see your point. But we don't. The next 12 months will reveal a lot in terms of our current NHL youth and how much they can improve and how our prospects do. Especially the ones turning pro. Brook, Poehling, Suzuki, Primeau, Teasdale.

The better time to make a move with Petry, Weber, Tatar, Byron, Drouin is next deadline or the 2020 off season. Or at the 2021 deadline.

League wide they were seen as better prospects then Romanov & Brook. That's why their names appeared on top-50/100 prospect lists and Brook/Romanov don't. It doesn't mean Brook and Romanov won't end up with better careers, but when you are discussing things like hype/projection Tinordi and Beaulieu had higher amounts.

You haven't explained how our D-corps will improve over today's core. You said Weber would be in decline and would need to be replaced. But there's never been any indication of how he will be replaced, and more importantly even if he magically is replaced how do we improve the D-corps because it's currently a weak link with Weber.

As for waiting, why? Will your plan of not trading vets unless UFAs and not trading youth change in any way based on what next year will "reveal"? My guess is it wouldn't change your plan at all, whether they have strong/weak starts to their pro-careers you'll still be preaching patience and not trading youth and waiting to deal vets right?

 

[habsfan891]

Habs EOP suggested moving Juulsen to LA for Kale Clague.
Would you make that deal with the surplus we have on the right side?
Mete - Weber
Kulak - Petry
Reilly/Olofsson/Klague - Fleury/Folin

With Clague moving up with Petry as he becomes more acclimated and Kulak being a 3rd pair mainstay with Fleury

Edit: It just dawned on me that we would have a very healthy d with all the kale

I make that move faster than i can pick up the phone to say yes

 

[tazsub3]

I wouldn’t trade Juulsen for sergachev straight up. In case anyone hasn’t noticed Sergachev isn’t very good defensively. He’d be destroyed by the fans and media with 2 years.

Nor only that, he is on a team that can cover a lot of the deficiencies, had he been on the habs , it would be a bigger disaster, as a lapse in a game you lead 4-0 and becomes 4-1 is not a big deal.
But in Montréal it would mean a loss more often then not

 

[Sorinth]

I'm all for trading some veterans for youth, but I wouldn't go with an all out approach because I believe that veterans are needed to help rear the younger players, whether by allowing the coach to ice a competitive team while he gives younger players more sheltered minutes as required, or as a plain and simple role model to aspire towards being.

I'd move Petry after one more year where Brook and Fleury would have matured a full (another full) season in the AHL. I'd keep Weber as the captain and as a mentor for the younger Ds, but Montreal needs to acquire a young, quality LHD for this to be optimized as a plan.

I'd also trade Shaw and, perhaps, even Byron, one this year and the other the following year as youngsters join the lineup; Poehling as of next season and Suzuki the one after that.

There are options that are more than doing nothing, yet not wholesale to create too much of a distortion for the team environment.

There's definitely value in keeping some vets to help the younger players out, so personally I wouldn't trade everyone over 25, however we arguably have the opposite problem a guy like Hudon can't get ice time because there are too many vets blocking the young guys.