Proposal: Trade proposal thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
Seriously, I wouldn't bother with Mikko, but Staal would be interesting for a few seasons if the cost was affordable.
 

WG

Registered User
Sep 9, 2008
1,693
1,490
Going by Bergevin's overall moves, the more you hear about it, the less likely it will be that it's the move he ends up making, in the end.

However, it just goes to show that there might not be many obvious, young, talented top-6 C that are currently underused and overpaid on a team with looming Cap trouble ;)

If Bergevin manages to add a young, talented top-6 C for a reasonable price and that this player is someone that nobody saw coming, I just hope that people stop feeding the propaganda that Bergevin is a stupid person.

That's just mean and hateful for no reason.
If Bergy makes a good trade that helps address the top 6 and doesn't cost a fortune then yes, he will get props. Just as he has always gotten praise when he makes a good trade; Petry trade, Vanek trade, Drouin trade, good moves get credit, contrary to popular belief.

On the other side, if MB ends up trading pick and prospect for Edler (vs just resigning Markov) or trades picks for Frans Neilsen, or 1st + Gallagher for a sort-of solution in RNH (vs. signing Shipachev and/or resigning Radulov for free) then please understand that most of us unhappy with MB's body of work will not be happy with more asset mismanagement.

And I'd hope that those who continually advocate for more reasoned discourse can understand that it's possible to rather have signed Shipachev or Hanzal as UFA, vs. spending significant assets for RNH, and we are not just mindlessly bashing everything MB does.
 

Rosso Scuderia

Registered User
Jun 30, 2012
9,932
4,115
I'm thinking if Edm won't do Gally for Nudge, how about Lekhonen for Nudge. Makes less, bigger potential.

I wouldn't do that.

TBH, I'm not that big of a fan of RNH. He was completely useless in the playoffs. I remembered that I have to double check if he played all the game for the Oilers.. and I watched all the Oilers game.

He might be a natural C compared to Galchenyuk or Drouin but I much rather try them at C, they would even probably easily match RNH's production anyways, and keep Lehkonen.

I don't think RNH is the right C for us.
 

Kimota

ROY DU NORD!!!
Nov 4, 2005
39,188
14,060
Les Plaines D'Abraham
I wouldn't do that.

TBH, I'm not that big of a fan of RNH. He was completely useless in the playoffs. I remembered that I have to double check if he played all the game for the Oilers.. and I watched all the Oilers game.

He might be a natural C compared to Galchenyuk or Drouin but I much rather try them at C, they would even probably easily match RNH's production anyways, and keep Lehkonen.

I don't think RNH is the right C for us.

dude, we need somebody
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
If Bergy makes a good trade that helps address the top 6 and doesn't cost a fortune then yes, he will get props. Just as he has always gotten praise when he makes a good trade; Petry trade, Vanek trade, Drouin trade, good moves get credit, contrary to popular belief.

On the other side, if MB ends up trading pick and prospect for Edler (vs just resigning Markov) or trades picks for Frans Neilsen, or 1st + Gallagher for a sort-of solution in RNH (vs. signing Shipachev and/or resigning Radulov for free) then please understand that most of us unhappy with MB's body of work will not be happy with more asset mismanagement.

And I'd hope that those who continually advocate for more reasoned discourse can understand that it's possible to rather have signed Shipachev or Hanzal as UFA, vs. spending significant assets for RNH, and we are not just mindlessly bashing everything MB does.



Kudos to those who aren't just mindlessly bashing Bergevin -- I know there are some that are critical and that haven't fallen to those depths either.

I would've preferred some move like re-signing Radulov and signing Shipachev without giving up assets along the way. Of course, that would've had repercussions like not re-signing Markov, still (but I could accept that as I actually prefer Alzner for 5 years over Markov for one year, if it came down to that, not as a replacement for Markov, but as a partner that would help get the most out of Petry during the four last years of his contract).

It certainly would've meant moving Plekanec as soon as possible to free up some Cap hit right away -- and that might have created some risk before seeing what Shipachev was really worth, but I wouldn't really have cared because it's not like Plekanec -- by staying -- would make us more of a Cup contender either.

I, for one, have nothing against advocating what you're advocating. Those are scenarios we all might've/could've/would've liked to see, I'm sure; more continuity (Radulov), some apparent help at C (Shipachev), keeping futures to develop as replacements.

I would have liked to see Drouin added to that mix and been content with a more defensive D banking on perhaps another KHL transplant (Jerabek) working out. I'd rather have a frank discussion about the worth of keeping a highly touted prospect at D over getting an extremely young, local, talented offensive player that immediately helps the team with a need it seems to have been unable to address in the longest time -- Offense!

I just can't stand the stance of some posters assuming that, because their vision wasn't realized, it automatically means that it would've been a cinch for the GM to do so and that he's just incompetent for not having made it happen, that it was a given move for Montreal that the GM simply refused to do because he's only a brain cell away from $hitting himself.

What we currently have certainly isn't what I would've wanted, but I'm trying to see if there is something to be arranged from it (or salvaged, for the more pessimistic). I'm trying to honestly analyze the potential of this lineup -- which I don't feel is set in stone yet either -- to see what avenues might still be available to us.

I just prefer to do that than throw the GM under the bus, have no solutions to propose because I just say that the moron couldn't make it happen anyways, then rinse and repeat the whole diatribe.

I'm not saying that you do that, but plenty of posters do strictly that. It makes the atmosphere more aggressive and the site less pleasant to navigate.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
I'm thinking if Edm won't do Gally for Nudge, how about Lekhonen for Nudge. Makes less, bigger potential.

I'd have a bigger problem doing that. For one, the Cap factor that Lehkonen would bring to the Oilers is as valuable to the Habs going forward, especially with Price's new contract and Weber's still long term contract.

I'd be ecstatic at the idea of aligning Lehkonen with McDavid if I were Chiarelli. Not only do I think that Lehkonen could score 30 -easily, even -- alongside McDavid, his limited Cap hit (in the short term at least) would instantly make the total cost of the Oils' first line normal again, cutting McDavid's Cap impact on that line almost in half!

Pass for me, I believe. I'd look for another option.
 

Rosso Scuderia

Registered User
Jun 30, 2012
9,932
4,115
dude, we need somebody

Somebody to do what exactly? Win the regular season? We dont him then.

I just don't think he's what we need, like to win the cup, but if we are to bring him, I wouldn't trade Lehkonen for him.

I'd rather give Danault or Shaw.
 

Kimota

ROY DU NORD!!!
Nov 4, 2005
39,188
14,060
Les Plaines D'Abraham
I'd have a bigger problem doing that. For one, the Cap factor that Lehkonen would bring to the Oilers is as valuable to the Habs going forward, especially with Price's new contract and Weber's still long term contract.

I'd be ecstatic at the idea of aligning Lehkonen with McDavid if I were Chiarelli. Not only do I think that Lehkonen could score 30 -easily, even -- alongside McDavid, his limited Cap hit (in the short term at least) would instantly make the total cost of the Oils' first line normal again, cutting McDavid's Cap impact on that line almost in half!

Pass for me, I believe. I'd look for another option.

I admit it would pain me to do that. It's Gallagher or nothing.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
I admit it would pain me to do that. It's Gallagher or nothing.

There might be other options, but if we're being realistic, I think that Gallagher has good value. Hey, if they wanted Hudon and a 1st round pick, or 2 second rounders, they could come out HUGE winners in EDM because they have someone in McDavid or Draisaitl to make Hudon pay off the same way they could make Lehkonen pay off.

When you have a McDavid, it's always easier to promote a youngster with skill, but without much experience, in the top-6. Same with Crosby, Malkin, Toews, and a few other top notch Cs.
 

Mr. Hab

Registered User
Nov 17, 2004
6,704
0
Montreal
I admit it would pain me to do that. It's Gallagher or nothing.


Last playoffs, we had three forwards who were obvious in heart/hustle, playoff hunger and delivery...Radulov, Gallagher, and Lehkonen (and Pleks for once scored a huge goal in playoffs, but still wasn't part of the big three).

I keep Gallagher, unless it's a center (Duchene) you shouldn't (imo) refuse for Gallagher. I don't have a crystal ball, but my money (Canadian Tire money!) is on Duchene (vs R. Nugent-Hopkins)...for playoff warrior/winner.

Not so sure about RNH in playoffs...I'd lean towards Duchene for playoffs...even though some of you will look at Matt's stats and think otherwise.
(I could be wrong about Duchene! my ego would be ok with it!).

I'd prefer to find a way to get Duchene AND keep Gallagher! (not easy, but...not impossible).

And, if Drouin AND Galchenyuk can be good CENTERS for us...why trade Gallagher for RNH, when maybe Drouin and Galchenyuk can be, will be better than RNH...especially in playoffs (Drouin's last 16 playoff games with Tampa were amazing...major playoff winner/warrior...major....I just hope he displays the same passion/grit/heart with us in playoffs).


Duchene for Pacioretty.
(we'd be way better in playoffs, imo).

Pleks (we eat $1-2mil) for __?__.


Best C depth in a long time:
<Drouin (center or winger?)
<Duchene (center/winger)
<Galchenyuk (center/winger)
<Danault (center/winger)
 
Last edited:

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
Last playoffs, we had three forwards who were obvious in heart/hustle, playoff hunger and delivery...Radulov, Gallagher, and Lehkonen (and Pleks for once scored a huge goal in playoffs, but still wasn't part of the big three).

I keep Gallagher, unless it's a center (Duchene) you shouldn't (imo) refuse for Gallagher. I don't have a crystal ball, but my money (Canadian Tire money!) is on Duchene (vs R. Nugent-Hopkins)...for playoff warrior/winner.

Not so sure about RNH in playoffs...I'd lean towards Duchene for playoffs...even though some of you will look at Matt's stats and think otherwise.
(I could be wrong about Duchene! my ego would be ok with it!).

I'd prefer to find a way to get Duchene AND keep Gallagher! (not easy, but...not impossible).

And, if Drouin AND Galchenyuk can be good CENTERS for us...why trade Gallagher for RNH, when maybe Drouin and Galchenyuk can be, will be better than RNH...especially in playoffs (Drouin's last 16 playoff games with Tampa were amazing...major playoff winner/warrior...major....I just hope he displays the same passion/grit/heart with us in playoffs).


Duchene for Pacioretty.
(we'd be way better in playoffs, imo).

Pleks (we eat $1-2mil) for __?__.


Best C depth in a long time:
<Drouin (center or winger?)
<Duchene (center/winger)
<Galchenyuk (center/winger)
<Danault (center/winger)

Since you traded Pacioretty, a 35+ goal-scoring LW for a 30-Goal-scoring C/W in Duchene, I don't think that it is that much of a downgrade in the goal department.

Since Pacioretty is strictly a LW, I think that you need to go with Drouin back on his strong side on the wing at LW.

Your top-9 C line becomes Duchene, Galchenyuk, Danault and your duos become Druoin - Duchene, Gakchenyuk - Lehkonen and Byron - Danault, IMHO.

I'd slot Lehkonen with Drouin and Duchene, Hudon with Galchenyuk and his pal, Gallagher for a little continuity or chemistry, if you will, then Hemsky with Byron and Danault for an ultra fast third line that can play a shutdown role as well.

Drouin - Duchene - Lehkonen
Hudon - Galchenyuk - Gallagher
Byron - Danault - Hemsky
Martinsen - McCarron - Shaw

Mitchell
 

DangerDave

Mete's Shot
Feb 8, 2015
9,732
5,068
T.O
Seriously, I wouldn't bother with Mikko, but Staal would be interesting for a few seasons if the cost was affordable.

Mikko is still a really good player who can eat up the defensive minutes and allow Chucky to he deployed more offensively. I know hes pretty old but if you're just going for it as I believe we should be, he would be a great adition. Guy still put up 58 points and a plus 28.
 

Deebs

Let's swim to the moon
Feb 5, 2014
16,730
13,260
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/report-red-wings-henrik-zetterberg-plans-retire-two-years/

Zetterberg doesn't plan on playing his full contract out, which could make him a bit more appealing trade-wise, for what it's worth.

If he's willing to fulfill this, I wouldn't mind Henrik for a couple of years. He's on the decline sure, but the guy is a warrior and would help solidify the Center position for us while our youngsters continue to develop and we look for other solutions.

By him moving, he'd actually be helping the Wings rebuild. He loves Detroit and the organization, so it would be like a mutual gift. Something to consider anyways.
 

NobleSix

High Tech Low-Life.
Apr 20, 2013
16,842
15,643
Vatican City
Isn't this exactly what happened with Chucky?

Drouin at least played at center his entire last year in Junior where he managed to get 108 points in only 46 GP and 41 points in 16 GP in the PO.

Chucky didn't even play center in Sarnia before making the jump...

Really Belial.

In any case, I hope you're right about Drouin, but I don't see it. Never have I watched Drouin play and thought "center". We'll see though.
 

Deebs

Let's swim to the moon
Feb 5, 2014
16,730
13,260
If he's willing to fulfill this, I wouldn't mind Henrik for a couple of years. He's on the decline sure, but the guy is a warrior and would help solidify the Center position for us while our youngsters continue to develop and we look for other solutions.

By him moving, he'd actually be helping the Wings rebuild. He loves Detroit and the organization, so it would be like a mutual gift. Something to consider anyways.

The Wings are in cap hell and in complete rebuild mode, what would you guys give up for 2 years of Zetterberg?
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/report-red-wings-henrik-zetterberg-plans-retire-two-years/

Zetterberg doesn't plan on playing his full contract out, which could make him a bit more appealing trade-wise, for what it's worth.

This just goes to show just how stupid hockey players are, sometimes. Yes, the team structured the contract to fool the system. Yes, the league knows it. Yes, you'll likely not play until the end of the contract, but, at least, don't come out saying point blank that the contract was only signed that long to screw the pooch!

There are Cap penalties in place, and the team could've argued that you were broken down or something to make those penalties drop, especially if it was the litmus test case. Now, the league actually has the player on record saying that he conscientiously set out to fool the system, along with his team and likely never even had the intention of playing out the term of his contract.

Makes it a little hard for a league -- that wants to remain credible -- to let that one slide.

Then again, the NHL has repeatedly managed to confirm that ir can be a bush league...
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
The Wings are in cap hell and in complete rebuild mode, what would you guys give up for 2 years of Zetterberg?

A stop-gap C in Zetterberg doesn't help if you give away the draft picks you are supposed to develop to be the gap filler for the future.

That only works, IMO, if you are on the cusp of actually winning the Cup. I'll take the pulse of these message boards/forums as an indication that not many onlookers think that this is the case.
 

Pompeius Magnus

Registered User
May 18, 2014
19,660
16,117
Kanata ,ON
If he's willing to fulfill this, I wouldn't mind Henrik for a couple of years. He's on the decline sure, but the guy is a warrior and would help solidify the Center position for us while our youngsters continue to develop and we look for other solutions.

By him moving, he'd actually be helping the Wings rebuild. He loves Detroit and the organization, so it would be like a mutual gift. Something to consider anyways.

Depends on what the Wings are looking for prospect wise . I don't think he'd be a big enough difference maker for us to give up some of our top guys ( I.e Poehling,Juulsen,Mete ) but if it's something around Scherbak, McCarron or Lindgren + then it's something to consider. With Sergachev gone we have to be careful with our assets.
 

Deebs

Let's swim to the moon
Feb 5, 2014
16,730
13,260
Depends on what the Wings are looking for prospect wise . I don't think he'd be a big enough difference maker for us to give up some of our top guys ( I.e Poehling,Juulsen,Mete ) but if it's something around Scherbak, McCarron or Lindgren + then it's something to consider. With Sergachev gone we have to be careful with our assets.

Yeah for sure, it would have to make sense on our behalf cause like you said, giving up some of our top prospect just sets us back later on.

If Zetterberg retires after 2 years (if we traded for him), would we eat that leftover $12M or does Detroit because they signed him to the deal?
 

RealityBytes

Trash Remover
Feb 11, 2013
2,949
403
Somebody to do what exactly? Win the regular season? We dont him then.

I just don't think he's what we need, like to win the cup, but if we are to bring him, I wouldn't trade Lehkonen for him.

I'd rather give Danault or Shaw.

Then Edmonton won't bite on the trade. Same with just Gallagher one on one.

It would have to be at least Lehkonen, or I doubt they even answer the phone.
 

Scriptor

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
7,776
4,747
Depends on what the Wings are looking for prospect wise . I don't think he'd be a big enough difference maker for us to give up some of our top guys ( I.e Poehling,Juulsen,Mete ) but if it's something around Scherbak, McCarron or Lindgren + then it's something to consider. With Sergachev gone we have to be careful with our assets.

I wouldn't write off Scherbak just yet, personally, or McCarron, whom I think (of the big guy) will blossom under a coach that likes this type of player.

I think that we can spare a G, even as good as Lindgren, because of the depth that we currently have at the position throughout the system and of Price's long term contract. IMO, McNiven will be better than Lindgren, in the end, anyhow....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->