• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Habs trade Scandella to Blues

Alan C

Active member
I wouldn’t - neither are the sticks that stir the drink, but Habs for the better part of 40-years have more difficulty finding offensively gifted forwards than D
Drouin is a headcase. Sergachev will continue to improve. We have no problem finding 50 point forwards.
 

GrandWazoo

Well-known member
I wouldn’t - neither are the sticks that stir the drink, but Habs for the better part of 40-years have more difficulty finding offensively gifted forwards than D
I didn't mind the deal at the time for that very reason, but I've been underwhelmed by Drouin. I also thought the hype around Sergachev was overblown.
 

CH1

The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
Was never a fan of the trade, and I’d take a mulligan on the deal for the simple reason that I could trade Chevy again and get something more interesting than Drouin
 

GGpX

Well-known member
I will maintain what I wrote in thread when the trade was discussed, as time seems to have proven me right.

The trade, in of itself at face value, is not bad. In fact, in terms of pure value, we might have had the upper hand.

However, it was completely and utterly illogical to trade Sergachev, a young player with high upside on a cheap deal for 3 years in a position of organizational weakness at left D (fast forward 3 years later, it's still an organizational weakness), for a player in Drouin who needed a new contract, had fallen out of favor in the organization, who was surpassed by Brayden Point in the organizational depth chart and plays the same position as the organizational strength: on wing.

Who do you think has buyers remorse, Tampa Bay (who used that freed up capspace in part to sign their top-end guys?) or Montreal (who has spun its wheels)?

We traded cheap labor that filled an organizational weakness for pricey labor to reinforce a position of strength. And then we tried to convert Drouin into a center, a position he only played in his last year of Junior because he was so damn good that it didn't matter what position he played in?

A complete ****-up.
 

Demon Blond

Active member
I will maintain what I wrote in thread when the trade was discussed, as time seems to have proven me right.

The trade, in of itself at face value, is not bad. In fact, in terms of pure value, we might have had the upper hand.

However, it was completely and utterly illogical to trade Sergachev, a young player with high upside on a cheap deal for 3 years in a position of organizational weakness at left D (fast forward 3 years later, it's still an organizational weakness), for a player in Drouin who needed a new contract, had fallen out of favor in the organization, who was surpassed by Brayden Point in the organizational depth chart and plays the same position as the organizational strength: on wing.

Who do you think has buyers remorse, Tampa Bay (who used that freed up capspace in part to sign their top-end guys?) or Montreal (who has spun its wheels)?

We traded cheap labor that filled an organizational weakness for pricey labor to reinforce a position of strength. And then we tried to convert Drouin into a center, a position he only played in his last year of Junior because he was so damn good that it didn't matter what position he played in?

A complete ****-up.
You missed the key word in your rant. “French”!
 

GGpX

Well-known member
Slightly off topic, but this is why at the draft you always, always, always draft BPA. Of course, since The Charlatan has been here, you've often heard Timmins say that they had a mandate asto what position they had to draft (Notice how nearly all of the drafts have a "theme" to them? Not a coincidence) and that has been wonderful, hasn't it?

If we draft 10th and the best player on our list is a center, you draft him. You know why? Because having Kotkaniemi & Poehling pushing to make the lineup, suddenly we're in a position of strength to be able to trade one of Danault or Domi and get a handsome return. It's not that they're bad players, but they're in their primes now and they're soon going to be asking for a contract to give them generational wealth. And if the first round center pans out? We have KK, Danault, Poehling, 2020 1st round pick center as our depth, on top of having Nick Suzuki able to play center.

With the return of a Domi/Danault trade, then you can start to fill out organizational needs in the more immediate future if that's what you want, or you can try to get more young & cheap talent.
 

GrandWazoo

Well-known member
Not sure I fully agree. I think we drafted for need with MacCarron (go figure) and KK. The rest of the draft I'd argue we drafted BPA. However we clearly had a focus on centers and defensemen in the past 2-3 drafts.
 

Sal_Butera

Well-known member
The Habs mandate at draft needs to be clear and basic - draft the most talented forward regardless whether C/W, available in rounds 1 & 2 unless a D is the unanimous pick.

The issue still remains the evaluation of the word “talent”, I don’t think Timmins is good at identifying skilled forward talent.
 

Habsy

Wrong Thinker Extraordinaire
The funny part about Caufield is that the Habs were kind of forced to take him. Had he not dropped they would have likely have chosen some not so offensive player.
 

GrandWazoo

Well-known member
The funny part about Caufield is that the Habs were kind of forced to take him. Had he not dropped they would have likely have chosen some not so offensive player.
Well they were clearly high on him, sometimes it's good to be lucky.
 

Krustchev

Well-known member
The funny part about Caufield is that the Habs were kind of forced to take him. Had he not dropped they would have likely have chosen some not so offensive player.
Rumor has it that Timmins would have drafted Cam York if both of them were there at no. 15. If so, the Flyers saved them.
 
Top