Way too much for Chychrun

significantly worse defensivly, not even much better offensivly and now they've got two awful contracts with term when they have to pay much much better players.
That montreal trade is so so so bad.

You trade away all of your picks and didn't get a goalie? 404 error

Probably, but I'd still do it. Likely costs less though.

that montreal trade is laughable. savard and monahan WILL fetch a 1st EACH. plus even. i know it sounds nut but those are the prices at the deadline

How can you spew so much factually wrong information with this amount of confidence?

Even though they could probably get more by trading these 3 players individually, the Habs should probably accept this just to offload Anderson’s contract

Have you looked at Woll's and Jones' stats recently?

That last one is weird.

Savard is not good. He does give us a different look we can use but he's a third pairing defenseman. We're stuck with him for 2 years
Anderson is super overpaid and signed for term. I would like him without his contract again to get a physical middle six forward with decent hands. But otherwise he's bottom 6. Given his contract I'd consider him negative value. Others may pay for him with retention for his style of play, not me.
I'd like Monahan as a pick up for 3 c. But he is likely more of an offensive 3c then defensive one. Still beggars cant be choosers. He'll likely get a 2nd. But hard to say given his history

In exchange your trading
Sammy negative value but pending Ufa
Robertson: why? He's young with offensive upside. And cheap.
Timmins: 3rd pairing or #7 defenseman but young and cheap. Not much value but useful
Jarnkrok: has more value to the Leafs than to others as he is significantly better than his contract. He is no world beater but he's a good middle six player who can play any position and paid under 3 mil
And a 2nd and depth picks

So weird...

dude, if you think Anderson, Monahan and savard are good adds, especially with those two awful contracts then you shouldnt be trying to tell people about factual accuracy.

have you looked at Anderson and savards ever?

Savard is good though, especially in the areas we need to address. We also know what type of players Rielly pairs best with and Savard is that. Anderson is not super overpaid at all; you could argue he's overpaid based on his current production, but he also has incredible value as a physical forechecker with great speed and finishing ability, a skillset that I think would make him look great on this team, especially in the playoffs. Monahan is great both ways and always has been, he's an ideal 3C with the potential to play further up the lineup.

This team is undoubtedly better IMO, and we'd only be spending assets that are very questionable to be game changers come playoff time, in a year where I feel we have our best shot at winning a cup. Appreciate the feedback, but we'll need to agree to disagree I think.

savard absolutly sucks and he brings nothing to the table but a bad contract. He allows shots and chances like he gets paid 100$ every time the other team gets the puck within 5 feet of the net and isnt a good partner for anyone, save maybe the Marlies top pairing.
Anderson is a guy with one 40 point season in his career and is currently on pace for like 20, he has always been a poor offensive producer and no, he's not a good finisher, he has two 20 goal seasons and one of those was only Just. He is a massive liability defensivly on top of that. He is without a doubt incredibly over paid

All sorts of no coming from Montreal, none of that is remotely intriguing.

He's played in a defensive role because he's good defensively. You perceive him as being bad defensively literally because you don't know how to evaluate players and account for their usage. You're about 5 years behind even within the analytics community; you have no idea what you're talking about and your opinion is worthless. Move along...

No, he isnt good defensively, he is very bad at it because he doesnt stop offense, which is the point of defence.
If he's good, then why is even a defence like the habs so much better with him off the ice in the same situations? Why do his team mates perform better without him?
Lol, love the "youre behind the analytics community" stuff too, dude, if you knew anything about analytics you wouldn't spend a single second defending savard or anderson

Sure bud

That is incorrect. He isn't ever played in a defensive role. He's probably a really good 4th liner and not really great in any other role long term. Either doesn't produce enough because he only can go in straight lines without any hockey IQ or makes a 3rd line really unreliable. Anderson isn't good. Never has been

Savard is at best worth a 4th/ 5th rd pick with retention and Monahan might get you a 3rd rd pick with retention. And no one is gonna even offer anything for Anderson unless theres retention, a draft pick and a salary going back. Ridiculous t othink theres anything close to a 1st rd pick going for any of them

Check the defensive zone starts for all 3.

Woll may or may not come back the same after his high ankle sprain.

Jones is coming off back to back seasons of -9 saves above expected, bottom the the league in both seasons.

Maybe he is good, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I would get help.

Woll will be fine after his ankle SPRAIN. Jones has been fine as a #2, even a #1 as of late. We've yet to see what Hildeby can do as well. If they get to the deadline and decide they need a 3rd goalie I don't think that would be overly concerning...

starting lots in the defensive zone doesnt mean you are good at defence. it means that you start a lot in the defensive zone. And Savard gets mauled

There's almost no point in entertaining this, but here we go again. If we can't come to the conclusion through basic common sense that starting in the defensive zone has a direct effect on the "stats" you use to evaluate "defense", then there are literally countless examples of it for you to refer to, with the exception to this being incredibly rare.

If common sense doesn't lead you there, then there is an incredible amount of data to show that players a coach chooses to play in defensive situations has a direct correlation on the stats you use to determine "defense". Instead of recognizing the obvious, you seem to think that you're onto something that no coach in the NHL can see, and that they employ what you perceive to be "bad defensive players" almost exclusively in defensive situations.

So sure buddy, you know more than Marty St. Louis and every other coach in the NHL who are so stupid that they consistently put what you consider to be their "worst defensive players" almost exclusively in defensive situations. You're truly hopeless and unwilling to challenge your dimwitted beliefs, which come as a result of failing to grasp even the most basic concepts of what is not an overly complicated sport.

Give yourself a pat on the back, because you've unlocked something that people who have spent a life time in the game are completely unaware of. I'm not going to reply to you any longer, you've obviously gotten so much reassurance for your delusions that you're incapable of basic logic.

I love how many words you used to say "an nhl coach of a really bad team does it so it must be right "
Just because you dont understand stats or context of those stats is no reason to appeal to authority so hard. Unless you wanna tell me thst no coach has ever done a wrong thing ever, or an gm either, considering they are gms so they know way more than you so you cant say otherwise.
Anyways, savard sucks and cant defend