regis
Le Gros Bill
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by regis on Jun 10, 2024 16:00:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graeme on Jun 10, 2024 17:47:18 GMT
Given the JK and Aho offer sheets were the prior regime in Montreal, I can't imagine either side still holds a grudge. I also don't know if this was based on insider info (I don't think of Kypreos as much of an insider FWIW), or he was just speculating.
|
|
|
Post by maasart on Jun 10, 2024 18:42:59 GMT
Given the JK and Aho offer sheets were the prior regime in Montreal, I can't imagine either side still holds a grudge. I also don't know if this was based on insider info (I don't think of Kypreos as much of an insider FWIW), or he was just speculating. Yeah, seems far fetched to me. Unless they think the owners play a big role (Molson & Dundon) but i find that highly unlikely. Even if Carolina has this burning hatred for Montreal, hughes seems like the consummate smooth talker & professional. I think he could smooth over any bad blood if his deal is, indeed, the best offer.
|
|
|
Post by maasart on Jun 10, 2024 18:49:30 GMT
Yes and no.
It is the same in terms of giving up a younger D man for a more established player but one who is still young and can be with you for 6-8 years, as well as trading an asset at one position for an asset at another position you are trying to fill.
It is different in that when Sergachev was traded, the team also lost Emelin and didn't retain Markov, and we had a dried-up pipeline at LHD. There was no plan to replace Sergachev, which was the problem.
I've always said that the premise behind the Sergachev for Drouin trade wasn't a bad one. It just lacked a follow-up move to fill the void at LHD that came afterwards. But at the time the trade was made, Drouin was a promising and skilled player with the potential to be a 1C. That's a hard asset to acquire, so I understand Bergevin taking that shot. It didn't work out, but it doesn't mean the rationale to that trade in isolation wasn't sound. We can likewise look at the maneuvering Hughes pulled off to essentially swap Romanov for Dach and see that as being similar in premise. He dealt a young LHD who hadn't yet had a full chance for a young but slightly-more-established center. The difference here was that Hughes knew he had the pipeline of LHD to be able to give up Romanov. There was no guarantee Dach would end up being the better asset than Romanov (or the 13th overall pick) and there still isn't. In 5-10 years, we might look back at this trade as being one that didn't work out, if Dach continues to be shelved by injuries or if Romanov becomes a 25-minute D man for the Isles or if Nazar turns into a top 6 center with a better career than Dach. But it doesn't mean the idea wasn't reasonable.
In a Zegras deal, the premise would be the same, especially if we deal a LHD. Maybe Guhle ends up being the better player long term. Maybe he doesn't. But you're still trading from a position where you have an abundance of NHL talent for a top 6 forward, where you currently lack assets. Right now, we'd be using two of Newhook, Roy, Anderson, etc. in the top 6, so Zegras is a big step up there. We're better off, at least in the short term, adding Zegras to the top 6 over Roy, and then having Hutson or Xhekaj mop up the Guhle minutes than we are using Roy as a top 6, including an RHP or Ylonen or Farrell in the top 12, and having Xhekaj or Hutson in the pressbox because we have no room in the line-up for them. The trade, in isolation, makes sense in terms of the balance of assets. The bigger question for me is whether trading Guhle for Zegras is the best way to use that asset. What if Utah or Seattle, both of whom want a top 4 D man, offered to trade us pick 6 or 8 for Guhle? Are we better off dealing him and being able to draft say Lindstrom at 5 and then Iginla, Catton, Eiserman, or Sennecke at 6 or 8? What if Buffalo offers you a player like Krebs or Kulich and pick 11 for Guhle and pick 57? Is that a better deal? What if Ottawa offers you Brady Tkachuk for Guhle, Beck, and pick 26? I'm not saying one of these trades is more desirable than another, but I think Guhle would draw significant interest from multiple teams, so I'd think you'd have several options to look at if you really wanted to consider him a trade asset.
Agree with all of this. Sergachev for Drouin in a vacuum wasnt a terrible move. Drouin could have excellend and Sergachev could have flamed out. There's no way anyone could have known & yes, of course it worked out poorly for us but it was a fair trade at the time. Meanwhile, trading Guhle could come back to bite us, but, as you said - position of strength. We cant keep all our LHD so do we trade a lower end one for less help up front or do we trade a higher end prospect for a higher end return. Id still rather trade Matheson but we have the luxury of several top end dmen in the system. Id hate to lose Guhle but if we walked out of this draft with Lindstrom, Iginla AND say Hutson in the first round? I could live with that loss. That said, I think its very unlikely we trade Guhle, Hutson or Reinbacher on the back end. I think its probably unlikely we trade Mailloux. Anyone else is probably fair game & ANY of those guys could be moved if Hughes thinks the deal is too good to give up.
|
|
|
Post by graeme on Jun 11, 2024 0:16:22 GMT
Given the JK and Aho offer sheets were the prior regime in Montreal, I can't imagine either side still holds a grudge. I also don't know if this was based on insider info (I don't think of Kypreos as much of an insider FWIW), or he was just speculating. Yeah, seems far fetched to me. Unless they think the owners play a big role (Molson & Dundon) but i find that highly unlikely. Even if Carolina has this burning hatred for Montreal, hughes seems like the consummate smooth talker & professional. I think he could smooth over any bad blood if his deal is, indeed, the best offer. Ya exactly, I assume it's been smoothed over.
With that said, I don't think the odds we get Necas are particularly high: there seems to be a lot of interest, so odds of any one team winning are low. Plus I don't see our management getting into a bidding war for a middle-six player. But assuming it's out of the question due to the offer sheets seems a bit far-fetched.
|
|
|
Post by ChiLla on Jun 12, 2024 10:01:24 GMT
Like others have said, the asking price for Zegras and Necas will probably be prohibitive. There's no way we're getting one of those guys for Harris or Struble plus prospects and picks, so any conversation would probably start with Matheson, Xhekaj or Guhle. You have to give to get but I'm not sure I'm prepared to part ways with Xhekaj or Guhle here, Matheson being a bit of a different story. Still, having Necas, Dach, and Iginla/Lindstrom/Demidov on our second line would give us a pretty interesting top 6 going forward.
|
|
regis
Le Gros Bill
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by regis on Jun 12, 2024 15:03:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Jun 12, 2024 15:58:53 GMT
But is it moving the window? I do think the Habs can challenge for a playoff spot this year with a couple of off-season moves, but they still won't be a favorite to make it. If they get in, it'll be as a wild card or maybe a 3rd place team, and I don't see them getting past the 2nd round in all likelihood. The bigger question is whether we can challenge for a Cup in the next 2-3 years, because that's Matheson's window. It's doable if we can add a Draisaitl or Raantinen next summer and if the likes of Hutson and Reinbacher pan out and so on, but as we build, it's becoming more clear that the true window isn't this coming year or the one after.
Conversely, if you were to deal Matheson for pick 10 and add a Sennecke, Iginla, Eiserman, or Catton in that slot, or even a D man like Buium, Parekh, or Dickinson, well then you have a player who might be able to help you in 2-3 years AND help you in 5-8. If Matheson were 26 or 27, then his window is 5-7 years. But he's 30 and will be 31 next season. We don't have 5 years of prime Matheson left. I wouldn't dump him for peanuts, and we might be able to get just as much for him if we wait another year or year and a half. But his value has never been higher than it is now, and there's the chance to convert that into a premium 10-year asset that's cost-controlled for the first 4-5.
Just remember that two seasons ago, no one wanted to trade Josh Anderson. He was a power forward on back-to-back 20-25 goal pace (over 82 games), and everyone thought he would be valuable to us for another 4-5 years. Maybe he'll rebound next year, but we can see how that changed quickly. In 2020-21, I said we should trade Gallagher rather than re-sign him to a longterm deal. But everyone was clamoring about how he was coming off of multiple 30-goal seasons and how he was the heart and soul of the team and that we had to overpay to keep him here. People were arguing we should have re-signed Pacioretty rather than dealing him, and instead, that trade worked out really well for us. Did that trade set our window back or did it recognize that we didn't really have a great window with Pacman any more and turn him into a 10-year asset while we still had the chance? The Habs have had a bad habit of hanging on to players when they're on the downturn of their careers. That strategy makes sense IF you are truly a competitor for the Cup and you are in win-now mode. That ain't this team.
Matheson was undoubtedly our best D man last year, and he likely will be again this year. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about how to maximize him as an asset. I don't believe Hughes intends on trading him this summer, or at least I'd be very surprised if it happens. But we do need to make room on the left side of the D and we do have holes n the top 6 and at RHD to fill. I personally really like the top 10-12 prospects in the draft this year. I think it falls off a cliff after 12. But if you can take one of your LHD assets and turn them into a top 10 pick, I think you have to do it. To me, getting an Iginla, Sennecke, Eiserman, Parekh, or Catton at 9 or 10 is like getting another top 5 pick. I don't think there's much that separates what you'd get at 4 compared to what you'd get at 8 or 11. Let's see how the next 2-3 years play out, but I think it's possible that if we keep Matheson that long, we'll be sitting here at that time not having won a Cup and wondering if we could go back and take one of those draftees I listed in exchange for him.
|
|
|
Post by maasart on Jun 12, 2024 16:21:32 GMT
Yeah moving Matheson would be tough - we'd almost certainly be a little worse in some areas - but as BT mentioned, likely better in others.
I dont think Hughes wants to move matheson but it may make the most sense based on value and return.
|
|
|
Post by graeme on Jun 12, 2024 18:42:21 GMT
Yeah moving Matheson would be tough - we'd almost certainly be a little worse in some areas - but as BT mentioned, likely better in others. I dont think Hughes wants to move matheson but it may make the most sense based on value and return. The thing is, even if they don't see him as part of the core going forward, I suspect they'd want to wait until at least mid-season to trade him. The big wildcard right now is Hutson - if Hutson makes the jump pretty smoothly, then suddenly Matheson is largely expandable (we're still light on experience, but I think that will work out okay). But if Hutson struggles, I don't think the team is comfortable continuing without Matheson, both for the short-term success, but also for helping the rest of the players on the ice develop since they no longer have that dynamic playmaker on the back-end.
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Jun 12, 2024 19:45:52 GMT
Yeah moving Matheson would be tough - we'd almost certainly be a little worse in some areas - but as BT mentioned, likely better in others. I dont think Hughes wants to move matheson but it may make the most sense based on value and return. The thing is, even if they don't see him as part of the core going forward, I suspect they'd want to wait until at least mid-season to trade him. The big wildcard right now is Hutson - if Hutson makes the jump pretty smoothly, then suddenly Matheson is largely expandable (we're still light on experience, but I think that will work out okay). But if Hutson struggles, I don't think the team is comfortable continuing without Matheson, both for the short-term success, but also for helping the rest of the players on the ice develop since they no longer have that dynamic playmaker on the back-end.
The Habs may want to wait 6-18 months to deal Matheson, but the question is when they will get the biggest return. He's not an impending UFA this year and he still makes close to 5M a year. Even if that's good value for what he brought last year, a team still has to fit that salary under the cap, and we'd largely be talking about trading him to a contender if it's an in-season trade. Those teams are usually up against the cap at that point. So you may well be limiting the number of suitors if you wait to make a trade in-season.
I'd also argue that Matheson's value right now is as high as it's been and maybe as high as it's going to get. Last year, he stayed healthy and he put up 62 points (good for 9th among D men in the NHL). So what would it take for his value to increase, as he pushes past age 30? If he puts up 60-65 points again, it likely just maintains his current value. If he puts up less, maybe his value drops a bit. If he gets hurt, maybe his value drops. If Hutson or Mailloux or Guhle or Barron push him for PP time or minutes, maybe it hurts his value. Let's keep in mind that Matheson played the 3rd-highest minutes in the league last year. He had 1st-unit PP time that was largely unchallenged. If Hutson or Mailloux stick, that could change. So bottom line for me is that I don't see things going any better for Matheson than they did last year, when he had huge minutes, great health, and PP time, and always seemed to be on the ice with our 1st line. What would it take for me as a GM to say his value is continuing to rise? Maybe a 75-80 point season. Maybe his playing well in the post-season and helping the Habs to the 3rd or 4th round. I'm not confident either of those things is going to happen. So I'd argue that while anything can happen, the odds are considerably higher that Matheson's value will be the same or lower in 6 months than that his value rises significantly.
Lastly, I'd argue that if we're talking about dealing him for a top 10 pick (which was the premise to my original point here), you have an idea of what you're aiming for as a return. We're not talking about a 2025 or 2026 first rounder whereby we're trading him to a contender and thinking that's probably going to be a pick between 20-32. We're talking about a guaranteed top 10 pick, in a year where there aren't 3-4 franchise players in the draft but where the top 10-12 are a very solid group. As I said, I think drafting at 8, 9, or 10 this year is going to get you a player with similar odds of becoming a star to the guy you're getting at 4, 5, or 6. So the chance to add two of those players would be huge. Yes, it means a tad more patience waiting for those players (but with expectations that guys like Demidov, Iginla, Sennecke, Eiserman, and Lindstrom will be in the NHL within 2-3 years). But it could also mean your top 6 has 6 legitimate players for those roles for another 5-8 years. It means you've extended your window to win rather than rushing to compete in the next two seasons with Matheson.
So coming back to whether it will happen, I think it won't. I've outlined this before, but I think Hughes has little interest in parting with Matheson now. I think he sees a player who will still be good for another 2-4 years. I think he sees a leader on his D corps. I think he sees a local boy who likes playing here and understands the market (and we know ability to handle playing in Montreal is a big thing for Hughes' evaluation of players). I do think Hughes is a smart guy, who understands supply and demand and selling high more than his predecessor. But I think his ultimate plan will be to sell Savard at the deadline this year and Matheson next season. So what we're talking about here is strictly hypothetical. But when it comes down to it, the Habs have a logjam at LHD. They need to open up space there sooner rather than later, and it doesn't help us much to have quality players sitting in the pressbox or playing 12 minutes a night or spending longer in the minors than they should. Trading Harris or Struble doesn't bring back much in return. It rids us of an under-valued player who can hold their own and play a depth position on the cheap. Hutson needs ice when he's ready, whether that's this coming season or the one after. So really, we're looking at having to trade at least one of Matheson, Guhle, or Xhekaj if we want to open up the roster spot AND bring back a return that can help us in the top 6 or at RHD. Those are the options. I get that there will be resistance to all three of those options. But if Utah or Seattle or Calgary or New Jersey came offering their top 10 pick in exchange for my choice of one of those three players, I personally wouldn't pass that opportunity up and of the three, it makes the most sense to deal Matheson. I wouldn't trade him if I were Carolina or the Rangers or the Stars and I were expected to contend next year. And I wouldn't trade him if I were a team like NJ who has a roster that's ready now but just seemed to have an off-year last season and needs some goaltending. But the Habs aren't any of those teams, and if you want to get ahead, sometimes it requires making moves with your brain instead of your heart. To me, adding another Iginla or Sennecke or Eiserman helps this organization more than retaining Matheson for an extra 6 or 12 months.
|
|
regis
Le Gros Bill
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by regis on Jun 12, 2024 23:15:33 GMT
Nhlheadlines IG. Patrick laine wants a fresh start and both the team and his agent will work together to try get a trade done He hasTwo more years remaining with an $8.7 cap hit π€£ per Pierre Lebrun
Good luck
|
|
|
Post by claremont on Jun 13, 2024 0:48:18 GMT
Nhlheadlines IG. Patrick laine wants a fresh start and both the team and his agent will work together to try get a trade done He hasTwo more years remaining with an $8.7 cap hit π€£ per Pierre LebrunΒ Good luck it will be interesting to watch new GM Waddell try to reset the Blue Jackets On the Laine deal, he will have to retain salary - 50%. If he can broker a deal for a team to absorb 25% or $2.2m for 2 years, puckpedia suggests Columbus would have to give up their 2nd round pick #36. Complicating this, is the blue jackets owe the flyers either their 2024 2nd round pick or their 2025 2nd rounder as part of a previous trade. Other issues for Waddell is a disgruntled goalie in Elvis M, and RHD Jiricek who wants to be 1st or 2nd pairing. I believe he will smooth these last 2 over and not sure heβs ready to give up on Kent Johnson in a trade just yet. If I was HuGo, I might want to buy the Columbus 2nd round pick by retaining 25% of Laine for 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Jun 13, 2024 1:18:33 GMT
Nhlheadlines IG. Patrick laine wants a fresh start and both the team and his agent will work together to try get a trade done He hasTwo more years remaining with an $8.7 cap hit π€£ per Pierre Lebrun Good luck it will be interesting to watch new GM Waddell try to reset the Blue Jackets On the Laine deal, he will have to retain salary - 50%. If he can broker a deal for a team to absorb 25% or $2.2m for 2 years, puckpedia suggests Columbus would have to give up their 2nd round pick #36. Complicating this, is the blue jackets owe the flyers either their 2024 2nd round pick or their 2025 2nd rounder as part of a previous trade. Other issues for Waddell is a disgruntled goalie in Elvis M, and RHD Jiricek who wants to be 1st or 2nd pairing. I believe he will smooth these last 2 over and not sure heβs ready to give up on Kent Johnson in a trade just yet. If I was HuGo, I might want to buy the Columbus 2nd round pick by retaining 25% of Laine for 2 years.
They really can't afford to retain salary. For one, they have already used their three retention slots for the current season, so they'd only be able to broker such a deal after July 1st. But even then, they made the dumb Jeff Petry retention deal and so have two on the books for next season as well (him and Allen). If they retain on Laine as a broker, they won't be able to retain on any of Savard, Dvorak, Armia, Anderson, or Gallagher, which might hurt their chances of finding trades for some of them.
Ultimately, I have very little interest in Laine. He's overpaid and he's fragile. For me to have any interest in him as a player, yes I agree that there would need to be 50% retention on his salary to get him down to 4.35M. But even then, I wouldn't give up a ton to get him. Alternatively, the Jackets could retain a bit less (25% say) and then agree to take Josh Anderson in return. I just don't see a good solution to this.
|
|
|
Post by graeme on Jun 13, 2024 1:48:47 GMT
The thing is, even if they don't see him as part of the core going forward, I suspect they'd want to wait until at least mid-season to trade him. The big wildcard right now is Hutson - if Hutson makes the jump pretty smoothly, then suddenly Matheson is largely expandable (we're still light on experience, but I think that will work out okay). But if Hutson struggles, I don't think the team is comfortable continuing without Matheson, both for the short-term success, but also for helping the rest of the players on the ice develop since they no longer have that dynamic playmaker on the back-end.
The Habs may want to wait 6-18 months to deal Matheson, but the question is when they will get the biggest return. He's not an impending UFA this year and he still makes close to 5M a year. Even if that's good value for what he brought last year, a team still has to fit that salary under the cap, and we'd largely be talking about trading him to a contender if it's an in-season trade. Those teams are usually up against the cap at that point. So you may well be limiting the number of suitors if you wait to make a trade in-season.
I'd also argue that Matheson's value right now is as high as it's been and maybe as high as it's going to get. Last year, he stayed healthy and he put up 62 points (good for 9th among D men in the NHL). So what would it take for his value to increase, as he pushes past age 30? If he puts up 60-65 points again, it likely just maintains his current value. If he puts up less, maybe his value drops a bit. If he gets hurt, maybe his value drops. If Hutson or Mailloux or Guhle or Barron push him for PP time or minutes, maybe it hurts his value. Let's keep in mind that Matheson played the 3rd-highest minutes in the league last year. He had 1st-unit PP time that was largely unchallenged. If Hutson or Mailloux stick, that could change. So bottom line for me is that I don't see things going any better for Matheson than they did last year, when he had huge minutes, great health, and PP time, and always seemed to be on the ice with our 1st line. What would it take for me as a GM to say his value is continuing to rise? Maybe a 75-80 point season. Maybe his playing well in the post-season and helping the Habs to the 3rd or 4th round. I'm not confident either of those things is going to happen. So I'd argue that while anything can happen, the odds are considerably higher that Matheson's value will be the same or lower in 6 months than that his value rises significantly.
Lastly, I'd argue that if we're talking about dealing him for a top 10 pick (which was the premise to my original point here), you have an idea of what you're aiming for as a return. We're not talking about a 2025 or 2026 first rounder whereby we're trading him to a contender and thinking that's probably going to be a pick between 20-32. We're talking about a guaranteed top 10 pick, in a year where there aren't 3-4 franchise players in the draft but where the top 10-12 are a very solid group. As I said, I think drafting at 8, 9, or 10 this year is going to get you a player with similar odds of becoming a star to the guy you're getting at 4, 5, or 6. So the chance to add two of those players would be huge. Yes, it means a tad more patience waiting for those players (but with expectations that guys like Demidov, Iginla, Sennecke, Eiserman, and Lindstrom will be in the NHL within 2-3 years). But it could also mean your top 6 has 6 legitimate players for those roles for another 5-8 years. It means you've extended your window to win rather than rushing to compete in the next two seasons with Matheson.
So coming back to whether it will happen, I think it won't. I've outlined this before, but I think Hughes has little interest in parting with Matheson now. I think he sees a player who will still be good for another 2-4 years. I think he sees a leader on his D corps. I think he sees a local boy who likes playing here and understands the market (and we know ability to handle playing in Montreal is a big thing for Hughes' evaluation of players). I do think Hughes is a smart guy, who understands supply and demand and selling high more than his predecessor. But I think his ultimate plan will be to sell Savard at the deadline this year and Matheson next season. So what we're talking about here is strictly hypothetical. But when it comes down to it, the Habs have a logjam at LHD. They need to open up space there sooner rather than later, and it doesn't help us much to have quality players sitting in the pressbox or playing 12 minutes a night or spending longer in the minors than they should. Trading Harris or Struble doesn't bring back much in return. It rids us of an under-valued player who can hold their own and play a depth position on the cheap. Hutson needs ice when he's ready, whether that's this coming season or the one after. So really, we're looking at having to trade at least one of Matheson, Guhle, or Xhekaj if we want to open up the roster spot AND bring back a return that can help us in the top 6 or at RHD. Those are the options. I get that there will be resistance to all three of those options. But if Utah or Seattle or Calgary or New Jersey came offering their top 10 pick in exchange for my choice of one of those three players, I personally wouldn't pass that opportunity up and of the three, it makes the most sense to deal Matheson. I wouldn't trade him if I were Carolina or the Rangers or the Stars and I were expected to contend next year. And I wouldn't trade him if I were a team like NJ who has a roster that's ready now but just seemed to have an off-year last season and needs some goaltending. But the Habs aren't any of those teams, and if you want to get ahead, sometimes it requires making moves with your brain instead of your heart. To me, adding another Iginla or Sennecke or Eiserman helps this organization more than retaining Matheson for an extra 6 or 12 months.
I think this is right - from a pure return perspective, I'd be looking to trade him now as well. But as you said, I think the team may see Matheson as part of their mid-term future (which would require an extension), or even if not, they may not be comfortable trading him until they know what they have in Hutson. They've always tried to balance maximizing value with also being careful not to hurt the team's development, and I suspect they worry losing Matheson risks setting things back.
|
|
|
Post by ChiLla on Jun 13, 2024 7:25:28 GMT
it will be interesting to watch new GM Waddell try to reset the Blue Jackets On the Laine deal, he will have to retain salary - 50%. If he can broker a deal for a team to absorb 25% or $2.2m for 2 years, puckpedia suggests Columbus would have to give up their 2nd round pick #36. Complicating this, is the blue jackets owe the flyers either their 2024 2nd round pick or their 2025 2nd rounder as part of a previous trade. Other issues for Waddell is a disgruntled goalie in Elvis M, and RHD Jiricek who wants to be 1st or 2nd pairing. I believe he will smooth these last 2 over and not sure heβs ready to give up on Kent Johnson in a trade just yet. If I was HuGo, I might want to buy the Columbus 2nd round pick by retaining 25% of Laine for 2 years.
They really can't afford to retain salary. For one, they have already used their three retention slots for the current season, so they'd only be able to broker such a deal after July 1st. But even then, they made the dumb Jeff Petry retention deal and so have two on the books for next season as well (him and Allen). If they retain on Laine as a broker, they won't be able to retain on any of Savard, Dvorak, Armia, Anderson, or Gallagher, which might hurt their chances of finding trades for some of them.
Ultimately, I have very little interest in Laine. He's overpaid and he's fragile. For me to have any interest in him as a player, yes I agree that there would need to be 50% retention on his salary to get him down to 4.35M. But even then, I wouldn't give up a ton to get him. Alternatively, the Jackets could retain a bit less (25% say) and then agree to take Josh Anderson in return. I just don't see a good solution to this.
I would have some interest in Laine (that shot... wow) but yeah, he's very injury-prone and comes with some baggage... Pretty sure that's not what Hughes/Gorton/MSL want to have on their team. If he came really cheap I'd give it some thought, but it's probably not the wisest move for us. A deal around Anderson could work, yet I'd rather just keep Josh and hope for him to rebound.
|
|
|
Post by BigTed3 on Jun 13, 2024 14:10:40 GMT
Wondering what the relative abundance of scoring forwards already on the market does for the prices of such players. We haven't even officially hit the off-season yet and already, you have big names still in their primes rumored or confirmed to be available: Zegras, Necas, Ehlers, Laine, PLD, Marner, etc. And that's on top of some big-name UFAs (not necessarily in their prime though): Stamkos, Marchessault, Guentzel, Lindholm (who reportedly rejected long-term deals from both Calgary and Vancouver), Reinhart, Teravainen, Monahan, Debrusk, Stephenson, Toffoli, Tarasenko, and so on. Those are all players with the potential to play in someone's top 6.
If I'm a buyer, I don't know if I'm in a hurry to trade right now. I can wait for free agency to start, see what buyers mop up the UFAs and then have the number of teams who in the market for the tradeable players drop. There really isn't much of a reason to rush into making a deal unless you're getting the terms you want.
|
|
regis
Le Gros Bill
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by regis on Jun 13, 2024 15:32:35 GMT
Fwiw Jesse pollock ( Bardown ) his likely destinations for laine
3 Utah 2 Chicago 1 Carolina
|
|
regis
Le Gros Bill
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by regis on Jun 13, 2024 16:56:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maasart on Jun 13, 2024 18:36:20 GMT
I actually think (if he's mentally healthy again) Laine could be due for a huge comeback - but i also think he's the riskiest guy out there. If you believe Necas will be good, you have the opportunity to lock him up for 5 or even 7 years. Same with Zegras (although im personally not as excited about him) there's some cap control there. But with Laine, you're already paying him like a 40 goal scorer and - worse - you only have him locked up for 2 years. Even if columbus retained salary, i would worry about giving up assets to get him. Now, if they retain a bit and take Anderson for Laine, sure, im down for that, but im not giving up quality assets for a guy who may no bounce back and if he does, we'll likely lose in a couple of years.
|
|