HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Vancouver - Montreal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-24-2012, 02:51 PM
  #26
ProstheticConscience
I see an eagle
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,082
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Someone here hasn't seen Hamhuis play in the last two years.
Or any Canucks games for that matter.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 02:55 PM
  #27
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
Or any Canucks games for that matter.
Or no one believes it because Canuck fans keep spewing out nonsense that Ballard has, not only positive value, but good value.

Analyzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 03:15 PM
  #28
glenbuis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 722
vCash: 500
The only reason Montreal would move plekanac is to add to a solid young core of guys like price, galy, patches, subban, emelin, eller, tinordi etc. Trading away a good 29 year old for another 29 year old is a lateral move at best. Our only interest should be in 2013 first round picks, cant miss prospects or young proven players.

glenbuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 03:34 PM
  #29
Cogburn
Trixie Hobbitses
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,573
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
Or no one believes it because Canuck fans keep spewing out nonsense that Ballard has, not only positive value, but good value.
We're talking about "where Hamhuis got his value from". Ballard has little value to the Canadiens because his price, the position and style he plays, but I'd argue could be a fit on other teams if they want to pay for him. If not, we're fine keeping him.

As for Hamhuis, there is no way. Pleks for Hamhuis is a beefed up equivilant Ballard for Pleks. Yes, the value is way closer, but Pleks is overpaid for what he'd be (our third line center), and Hamhuis is a hell of an overpayment in our eyes, as he is our number one defender as it stands right now. We have 0 interest in moving him, unless you have a better defensive defender who can generate more offense on a contract as good a deal as he signed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
The only reason Montreal would move plekanac is to add to a solid young core of guys like price, galy, patches, subban, emelin, eller, tinordi etc. Trading away a good 29 year old for another 29 year old is a lateral move at best. Our only interest should be in 2013 first round picks, cant miss prospects or young proven players.
Young and proven probably won't get traded unless the stars align, we're short on prospects that are "can't miss", but a first? That's something I'd be interested in forming a package with, but honestly, I don't think the Canucks are the trading partner the OP is looking for. We don't need Plekanec, and unless Montreal is looking to dump him fairly cheaply due to a request to play here (and why would that be the case?), they can find better deals elsewhere.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 03:46 PM
  #30
glenbuis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 722
vCash: 500
Young and proven probably won't get traded unless the stars align, we're short on prospects that are "can't miss", but a first? That's something I'd be interested in forming a package with, but honestly, I don't think the Canucks are the trading partner the OP is looking for. We don't need Plekanec, and unless Montreal is looking to dump him fairly cheaply due to a request to play here (and why would that be the case?), they can find better deals elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

It is nice to hear common sense. I agree that right now these two teams are just not suitable trading partners based on what each team is really looking for.

glenbuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 03:56 PM
  #31
Cogburn
Trixie Hobbitses
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,573
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
It is nice to hear common sense. I agree that right now these two teams are just not suitable trading partners based on what each team is really looking for.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that we're entirely bad partners, but if you're looking to move Plekanec, we're not the highest bidder, that's for sure. I mean something around Gaunce+1st I could live with, for Plekanec and maybe a small +, but we'd have to jettison Ballard or Raymond+Alberts to afford him, and if we move Ballard we just create another hole.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 04:21 PM
  #32
LeX4cavalier
Registered User
 
LeX4cavalier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Would have to be a pretty big + from Montreal.

LeX4cavalier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 04:56 PM
  #33
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
I wouldn't go as far as to say that we're entirely bad partners, but if you're looking to move Plekanec, we're not the highest bidder, that's for sure. I mean something around Gaunce+1st I could live with, for Plekanec and maybe a small +, but we'd have to jettison Ballard or Raymond+Alberts to afford him, and if we move Ballard we just create another hole.
Even that deal I'd pass on. As good as Pleks is, he just isn't a major need for us. Our #1 need is an elite RW, if we're gonna break the bank on anything I'd hope it'd be that. We can get by with the 3rd line centers we have. Malhotra may rebound as this is his first full offseason after his eye injury, and then Schroeder should get a good look as well. Then we have LaPierre, who in the playoffs has proven to be suitable for that roll if all else fails.

As such, yes, we probably aren't good trading partners. If you guys feel like sending us Pacioretty, then we should talk.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 05:10 PM
  #34
glenbuis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 722
vCash: 500
PACIORETTY i GUESS WE CAN GET RAYMOND BALLARD AND EVEN A SECOND ROUDER FOR HIM I BET

glenbuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 05:47 PM
  #35
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
PACIORETTY i GUESS WE CAN GET RAYMOND BALLARD AND EVEN A SECOND ROUDER FOR HIM I BET
Thanks for adding your intuitive piece to the conversation. Perhaps now you realize how we feel about trading Hamhuis, even more so.

I realize Pacioretty is unavailable, but he is likely the only Hab we'd be willing to give up high end pieces for (except perhaps Subban).

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 05:53 PM
  #36
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
That's a big no from Vancouver

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 05:58 PM
  #37
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
 
Back in 94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,476
vCash: 500
I'd love to get Pleks but not at the cost of Hamhuis. If MTL was looking for more of a futures deal I'm sure something could be agreed upon. Would you guys be willing to take a combination of Kassian, Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, Ballard, Raymond, 1st?

Back in 94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 06:37 PM
  #38
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
We need Hamhuis and can't really afford to add that much salary at center. I still think Eller is an ideal fit for us at 3rd line center, but it's really hard to have rational discussion about him with Habs fans. Same as most fanbases are with favourites though.

StringerBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:12 PM
  #39
glenbuis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Thanks for adding your intuitive piece to the conversation. Perhaps now you realize how we feel about trading Hamhuis, even more so.

I realize Pacioretty is unavailable, but he is likely the only Hab we'd be willing to give up high end pieces for (except perhaps Subban).
I hardly think that plekanac for hamhuis is insulting. Suggesting Ballard and Raymond is.

glenbuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:27 PM
  #40
glenbuis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeX4cavalier View Post
Would have to be a pretty big + from Montreal.
Am i understanding this correctly that montreal would have to add b4 van would give Gaunce and a first for plekanac.?

glenbuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:30 PM
  #41
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
I hardly think that plekanac for hamhuis is insulting. Suggesting Ballard and Raymond is.
While value wise it may not be I still give hamhuis more value as he finished top 20 if not top 15 in Norris voting didn't he?

Now add in team needs and it becomes insulting. Hamhuis is at worst the #2 dman on the back to back presidents trophy winning team. Now their main needs are either a playmaking 2nd line winger for kes or a top line rw for the sedins. Pleckanac is none of those. He may be a 2C in Montreal but in Vancouver he is a 3C who plays C on the 2nd unit pp. Now at his what 5m cap hit why do the canucks exactly want him especially when it comes at the cost of their most steady and consistant d-man?

It's like canucks fans making a proposal that sees luongo go to the habs for say plekanac or cole/prospect/pick. Value wise it's more than fair but it only looks at vancouver's wants needs while totally disregarding montreals needs and wants

Here plecks is a non needed asset who would eat up a lot more cap space than needed for what his role would be. Just like luongo would be a non needed asset in Montreal who makes way too much cap space for his role


Last edited by Ched Brosky: 12-24-2012 at 07:38 PM.
Ched Brosky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:45 PM
  #42
Linden
[hello] :)
 
Linden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 36,113
vCash: 50
Value might be there, but there is no way we do this

If we lose Hamhuis, Bieksa becomes far less effective.

Can't put edler and bieksa together so...

Garrison- Bieksa
Edler- Tanev
Ballard- Alberts/Connauton


ewwwww


this is why Hamhuis is pratically untouchable for the Canucks , also the NTC

Linden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:56 PM
  #43
ProstheticConscience
I see an eagle
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,082
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
Or no one believes it because Canuck fans keep spewing out nonsense that Ballard has, not only positive value, but good value.
Oh yeah, that was a very serious offer there. I'm absolutely sure it wasn't meant as a comment about how much we like the idea of trading Hamhuis for Plekanec. Nah, no way.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 08:44 PM
  #44
Hi-wayman
Registered User
 
Hi-wayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
Am i understanding this correctly that montreal would have to add b4 van would give Gaunce and a first for plekanac.?
You better believe it. The Canucks aren't looking for a 3rd line centre like Plekanec. Schnieder is being penciled in for that roster spot. The Canucks are looking for someone to play on our first line plus we want to dump at least one of our declining, over-rated, over-priced forwards.

Montreal can keep Plekanec. The only deal Gillis would even start to consider would be Hamhuis (opens up a top pairing roster spot for Ballard), Vancouver's 2013 first round pick and Kesler ($5 million per year salary dump) for Scott Gomez.

Unless we get a franchaise player like Gomez to rebuild the Canucks around, the Canucks have no interest in any other Habs player or prospect and even if Montreal agrees to the above, Gillis still might decide that the Habs may have to agree to more of a salary dump than just Kesler. The Sedins & their $12.2 annual salary?

The Canucks and Habs really aren't good trading partners are they.


Hi-wayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 08:50 PM
  #45
Seatoo
Never Stop Poasting
 
Seatoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Interior of BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
I hardly think that plekanac for hamhuis is insulting. Suggesting Ballard and Raymond is.
its worse

Seatoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 09:23 PM
  #46
33
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,881
vCash: 50
Not a chance.

33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 09:33 PM
  #47
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenbuis View Post
I hardly think that plekanac for hamhuis is insulting. Suggesting Ballard and Raymond is.
I never said it was insulting. Nor did I offer Ballard and/or Raymond.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 09:35 PM
  #48
Cogburn
Trixie Hobbitses
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,573
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Even that deal I'd pass on. As good as Pleks is, he just isn't a major need for us. Our #1 need is an elite RW, if we're gonna break the bank on anything I'd hope it'd be that. We can get by with the 3rd line centers we have. Malhotra may rebound as this is his first full offseason after his eye injury, and then Schroeder should get a good look as well. Then we have LaPierre, who in the playoffs has proven to be suitable for that roll if all else fails.

As such, yes, we probably aren't good trading partners. If you guys feel like sending us Pacioretty, then we should talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back in 94 View Post
I'd love to get Pleks but not at the cost of Hamhuis. If MTL was looking for more of a futures deal I'm sure something could be agreed upon. Would you guys be willing to take a combination of Kassian, Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, Ballard, Raymond, 1st?
Gaunce I feel better about trading then Jensen or Kassian, and as Luck 6 says, he's not a huge need, so two of our top shelf prospects, this graded curve anyway, I think hurts us more. I am willing to take Pleks because I view him as the 2 C on this team, with Kesler moving to left wing, ala Sundin, with Booth filling the RW position.

Back in 94 is willing to give more then I am in terms of higher end prospects because I agree with Luck...Plekanec is want, not a need for this team, and while I view a first as less valuable then most, and I know Gaunce is relatively unknown as well as an asset, I'd rather lose a center while we draft/trade for/develop another then one of the big wingers we're trying to turn into powerforwards.

As for Patch...he's not for sale, but he's our asking price, with a +, for Hamhuis. Totally unreasonable, I must be drunk or playing NHL 13, yeah, yeah, but we create hole we don't need to create to fill a hole we don't have. Would Montreal fans trade Patch for Schneider? Of course not, not even getting into value.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 09:44 PM
  #49
Morlesio14*
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The 416
Country: North Korea
Posts: 776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckEatinShark View Post
I seriously doubt Hamhuis is available when Edler is a pending UFA.
I agree. Keep Hamhuis until Edler is signed. Do you think Edler would re sign?

Morlesio14* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 09:50 PM
  #50
ProstheticConscience
I see an eagle
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,082
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morlesio14 View Post
I agree. Keep Hamhuis until Edler is signed. Do you think Edler would re sign?
Yes.

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.