SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

F50marco

Member Since
May 29, 2015
Favourite Team
Montreal Canadiens
Forum Posts
19654
Posts per Day
6.0
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 23 at 2:05 p.m.
Thread: The case for trading Guhle
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>I wouldn't move Guhle just because Habs have depth on LHD. Guhle could be arguably the best of all of them. Until we know what we have, there is no point moving him IMO. Not to mention that Guhle is not worth a top 10 pick in the draft, especially this year, at least not yet. So we'd likely have to move him for another young roster player from another team whose a forward if anything.

Guhle can also play RHD pretty decently so putting him on the right side, at least for 1 year, makes others who are more reasonable, expendable. Harris IMO has no future on this team if Hutson makes the club.
Savard and Kovacevic are likely gone by TDL, freeing up more spots. Barron needs to step up or he may be waiver claimed. Xhekaj can play the right side if need be. Struble is not waiver eligible so he can be sent down. Mailloux also. etc etc

There isn't as much of a rush to move a dmen as many think. Depth is a good thing, especially with how many injuries the team has every year. Also, It'll be nice for Laval to not have to rely on ECHL players for once.</div></div>

I'm not saying Guhle should be traded because there's a logjam at LD, I'm saying it's one of the reasons this move would make sense - I'll give you that, it's actually a pretty weak argument. But if I refer to the arguments I made above, my strongests selling points would probably be the 2nd and 4th.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 22 at 5:49 p.m.
Thread: The case for trading Guhle
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>I wouldn't move Guhle just because Habs have depth on LHD. Guhle could be arguably the best of all of them. Until we know what we have, there is no point moving him IMO. Not to mention that Guhle is not worth a top 10 pick in the draft, especially this year, at least not yet. So we'd likely have to move him for another young roster player from another team whose a forward if anything.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Blazingbat11</b></div><div>I know you said, "at least not yet", but even now there would be teams in the top 10 that would jump at the opportunity to acquire Guhle. It depends on teams situation for sure. NJD almost 100%, OTT, UTA and SEA would most certainly be interested (even if MTL would have to add maybe a secondary asset but Guhle would still be the key piece)</div></div>

I think when Tom Fitzgerald talks about moving #10 pick, Guhle is exactly the type of player he would probably be looking for. Most of our core is in place, we just need to address a few areas. Guhle fits his description of the type of dman he would target. And is right age, stage of development. “Guys that can continue to grow along with Jack, Nico, etc.”.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 22 at 5:00 p.m.
Thread: The case for trading Guhle
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>I wouldn't move Guhle just because Habs have depth on LHD. Guhle could be arguably the best of all of them. Until we know what we have, there is no point moving him IMO. Not to mention that <strong>Guhle is not worth a top 10 pick in the draft</strong>, especially this year, at least not yet. So we'd likely have to move him for another young roster player from another team whose a forward if anything.

Guhle can also play RHD pretty decently so putting him on the right side, at least for 1 year, makes others who are more reasonable, expendable. Harris IMO has no future on this team if Hutson makes the club.
Savard and Kovacevic are likely gone by TDL, freeing up more spots. Barron needs to step up or he may be waiver claimed. Xhekaj can play the right side if need be. Struble is not waiver eligible so he can be sent down. Mailloux also. etc etc

There isn't as much of a rush to move a dmen as many think. Depth is a good thing, especially with how many injuries the team has every year. Also, It'll be nice for Laval to not have to rely on ECHL players for once.</div></div>

I know you said, "at least not yet", but even now there would be teams in the top 10 that would jump at the opportunity to acquire Guhle. It depends on teams situation for sure. NJD almost 100%, OTT, UTA and SEA would most certainly be interested (even if MTL would have to add maybe a secondary asset but Guhle would still be the key piece),

But let's play the hypothetical game. let's say CGY did indeed offer the 9th pick for Guhle, would Hughes accept the deal? We can all debate how close or not in terms of value in a vacuum and whatnot, but realistically, MTL is probably the team turning down the deal.
Gorton and Hughes have made it very clear they want to speed up the rebuild. Moving Guhle for a future asset (of equal or close to similar value) does the exact opposite. And Guhle hasn't reached his full potential yet, everyone agrees with this. He's already showing strong metrics as a top pairing D (playing on his off side no less). And we haven't touched on a key component of Guhle's game either; going back to his draft selection, the whole point and Bergevin's sales pitch for selecting him was... the "InTaNgIbLes"... He's a leader, he's a playoff type performer, he plays "the right way", etc. etc. There hasn't really been a true opportunity for Guhle to showcase those skills with MTL being a bottom feeding team.


It is kind of telling now with Guhle finally playing in a competitive environment, that he's thriving and has been one of team Canada's best defenders in a squad that includes Powers, Byram, Parayko, Severson, and Oleksiak...
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17 at 3:16 p.m.
Thread: Trading down for a 2025 pick
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>Yep I'm sure if someone they liked at 10 was available, they'd find a way. Don't think they'd do Guhle though. Future picks however should and would be in play for sure.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RobbStark003</b></div><div>and a top 10 pick, plus 27, plus Struble, plus a 4th doesn't equal pick 10.

i think we need known values here.</div></div>

The idea would be to trade back in 2024 and instead of adding a player or pick this year, we add a future pick or two that could be ammo at 2025 deadline or 2025 off-season. Maybe that ends up being later of two picks…or some conditional thing.

Many of the trade offers for #10 that we have seen on here can return a mid-teens puck along with 2nd, sometimes more. So dropping down to mid-twenties should probably return a 17-32 pick next year. And another piece.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17 at 2:48 p.m.
Thread: The Athletic recommended Markstrom trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>Listen, I don't want to toot our own horn here but believe it or not, the collective CF opinion (minus the crazies of course) are far more realistic than some of the Athletic or other publications opinions when it comes to trade value. They aren't thinking values and projections like we do. Their jobs are in creating narratives and storylines. Not analyzing data for trades like many of us do. Julian is good at what he does but I wouldn't put much stock in his trade valuations. I get LAK needs a goalie and wants to go get a cup but you don't sacrifice literally one of the best prospects in the league to go get a 34 year old, sometimes elite, sometimes dog poopoo, caliber goalie.

Its crazy how many writers/podcasters are so eloquent with words and quite knowledgeable on hockey culture, NHL rules, hockey politics etc but are completely out to lunch on trade values. AND THATS OK. He doesn't spend hours upon hours like some of us do here on CF, refining trade value knowledge.</div></div>

The trade was proposed back in February, Markstrom had just stolen back to back games for the Flames then lost a goaltending duel 1-0 vs the rangers (score was 2-0 but one was a empty netter). At the same time the Kings were falling in the standings because of poor goaltending. A fan made up the trade in his Flames Mailbag segment, MacKenzie added 3 million in retention to it. Obviously the trade makes no sense today, but it was some what realistic when it was proposed.[/quote]
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17 at 2:32 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 13 at 9:32 p.m.
Thread: Why not Silayev
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>Im always of the belief you go BPA with the caveat that you put a little emphasis on position to differentiate between equal players. <strong>Taking Silayev simply doesn't make sense unless they had a Guhle/Hutson/Matheson trade locked and loaded.</strong>

If they don't, then I would be fine picking the positional need whose slightly worse than Silayev. Its not like the gap is that great this year. 3-10 is basically a toss up and any one of them could be the best player at that point.

That is kind of the nice thing about this draft, they can't really mess it up as long as they take a player from the consensus top 12-13 players. Last year was the year to NOT reach for a dman...... but hindsight is 20/20 I guess.</div></div>

One of the points I made is the exact opposite. There’s no rush to trade anyone since Silayev is signed for 2 more seasons in the KHL. Habs could take their time, and naturally move from Matheson (trade deadline deal of 2026?)
And going with BPA… if Gorton, Hughes, Bobrov and Lapointe all think Silayev is a bonafide #1D who could be the next Hedman or prime Chara, it’s kind of hard to pass on that, regardless of handedness.
And as much as I love Hutson, Reinbacher, and Guhle (the Habs best young dmen imo) none of them have that bonafide #1 franchise D.
So if Hughes steps to the podium and calls Silayev’s name, then says at his press conference that he’s found a franchise defenseman to build around. I won’t complain.


I do agree that if MTL has someone on their list (let’s use Lindstrom hypothetically) who’s <strong>slightly</strong> worse in their minds, but is a better fit (a forward), pick him. No issues.
But slightly worse than a franchise Dman is still a true #1C, does Lindstrom fit that description for the Habs? Who knows. Same could be said for Silayev as a possible franchise D. Tough call.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 27 at 12:58 p.m.
Thread: Zegras is not coming to MTL please stop
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>I'll offer a different choice. Keep making Zegras trades!

What we should do is stop taking Trades, AGMs, comments, etc that we don't agree with as some sort of attack, that through power of persuasion, will make said action more likely to happen IRL.

Its a fantasy hockey site. If you don't like someone's opinion of a value/trade, move on..... or comment against it! Who cares, as long as its done with respect.</div></div>

Oh the purpose of this thread isn’t to literally ask people to stop posting Zegras trades. It’s mainly aimed at the folks who are trying to justify that Zegras to MTL has a very high likelihood of happening. And at a cheap (or even market value) cost.
Zegras just isn’t worth the asking price imo
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 26 at 10:15 a.m.
Thread: Rossi Traded
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>The point would be that both GM's were selling from a point of weakness. Gauthier because he was not going to sign with Philly and Rossi with the fact that it seems he's not a Guerin guy and he keep him despite him playing well. The actual exact details are not the same as i said, obviously. Similar only that one sense.

For sure we'll find out if he's gung ho on moving him. Hope he moves past the size thing and keeps him. He's finally turning into the player he was drafted to be.</div></div>

But the relative points of weakness aren't even remotely close to one another, and that's assuming Guerin is even dealing from a point of weakness to begin with. Which, I don't agree that he is. That's fine if you do, but it's hardly indisputable like it was in the case of Briere/Gauthier.

The entire argument is propped up on the opinion that once a GM a makes a player available, he damages his negotiating power to a significant enough degree that you're pointing it out. No issue with you having that stance, but that isn't a fact.

And agree - moving him for size/grit reasons would be quite dumb. Rossi plays hard and tough, I don't get Guerin's obsession with trying to be the nastiest team in the league.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 25 at 4:36 p.m.
Thread: Rossi Traded
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>Hmm I still disagree with that first sentiment. NHL trading is different than stocks and the housing market but yes I do agree with the old boys club mentality of the GM's. I didn't mean to imply that teams were now going to bend Guerin over backwards as a result. More so that, in a vacuum, a player like Rossi after the season he had would reach a level of perceived value that would force other teams to start a higher starting point for negotiations. Making him available (With realistic expectations and not just "listening"), automatically changes the dynamic of that negotiation.

Again I didn't mean that now Minny would need to accept the first crap offer thrown at them and I agree 100% with the Team A gets Player X and Team B gets Player Y + Draft Pick Z assertion. The real question I was hinting to is what would be the difference between the hypothetical scenario mentioned above vs if Rossi was not being actively shopped. IMHO I think there would be a decent amount of value lost as a result.

A similar but not exact example of this was Philly with Gauthier. What would Philly have got in return if Gauthier never wanted out and they were just listening to teams offers? Different circumstance than with Rossi obviously but a parallel can be made.</div></div>

Gauthier is not a good parallel at all. He was not under contract with PHI and outright said he would not sign. Rossi, however, has a contractual obligation with the Minnesota Wild and does not have an ounce of say in the matter. There is an iron clad legal difference between the two situations. That has exponentially more to do with trade price than whether or not a GM "made the player available."

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here, and we can revisit the value if he does get dealt this summer.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 25 at 12:23 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 17 at 4:35 p.m.
Thread: Markstrom Hayes and trading down
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>I disagree about that range but that's just my amateur opinion of course. I think the top 3-10 are interchangeable only. After that it starts to be a little more grey.</div></div>

I see it as roughly

Tier I: Celebrini

Tier II: Levshunov, Demidov, Catton, Eiserman

Tier III: Buium, Connelly, Dickinson, Silayev, Lindstrom, Yakemchuk, Iginla, Helenius, Greentree, Brandsegg-Nygard, Boisvert, Parekh, Chernyshov, Jiricek

(A few of those guys bounce around between II and III)

So I would agree with <a href="/users/SJS2212" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@SJS2212</a> in that the 6-15 range is a little similar and unless one of the top few fall, it could make some sense for NJD to move back and add an asset or two.

In the scenario above, they turned #10 pick into 3C, 4LW and still drafted Brandsegg Nygard (a guy that could have selected at #10). Most of our core is already built, thanks to years of high draft picks, so we mainly just have to address specific holes in lineup.

(Devils brass may have other plans…including trading the pick outright).