An argument supporting Monahans value

Banni

Rejoint: févr. 2022

Messages: 5,094

Mentions "j'aime": 2,375

Quoting: KentMcNally

I would not get too worried about the fact that every day you see “Monahan to Colorado for a first rounder” trade proposal. Trade proposals happen to every team that some fans don’t like. As you know, it is not going to stop until the deadline is over. The trades usually are meant to start a discussion and not to aggravate a specific fan base (except the true troll posts that people put up that are ridiculous).

This should be used as a brain storming site. Most trade suggestions won’t happen but it’s very easy to be critical and feel tall without giving anything other than platitudes instead of a hypothesis.
It’s cowardly and boring. Then again most posters here are sheep that still get a few low percentage trade rejections dead wrong. My favourite might have been Zadorov for Saad. It was suggested here. The toxicity from hawks fans was off the charts and yet it happened!
Maybe try to see the other side instead of saying this player is worth such and such and nothing else will be accepted. Because trading isn’t about compromise where both sides feel a tad unsatisfied, amirite?!?

KentMcNally a aimé ceci.

21 janv. à 7 h 59

#53

Démarrer sujet

Fall River Habs

Rejoint: août 2021

Messages: 896

Mentions "j'aime": 339

Quoting: Justafan79

Yet you compared him to Bergeron who may be the best defensive foward of the last 1/4 century

I just meant as far as points production he was close to what Boston got from its number one center.

If you look at one of my later comments I acknowledge that Monahan is not the same class as Bergeron.

Bergeron is a Hall of Famer without a doubt. Monahan is not.

Andy_Dick a aimé ceci.

21 janv. à 8 h 25

#54

Banni

Rejoint: févr. 2022

Messages: 5,094

Mentions "j'aime": 2,375

Quoting: KentMcNally

I swear there are a few posters that just go around with gotchas and never entertain any offer at any price, they might be more annoying than the trolls that post ACGMs for attn.

KentMcNally a aimé ceci.

21 janv. à 11 h 42

#55

Rejoint: juin 2015

Messages: 2,710

Mentions "j'aime": 3,025

Quoting: Andy_Dick

This entire thread is doing exactly that: multiple fanbases discussing why they believe Monahan is not a viable option for their team. There are 50+ posts driving that conversation.

Moving forward, can we agree to just link back to this thread as an FAQ on why the incessant Monahan ACGMs are not desired?

21 janv. à 11 h 54

#56

Démarrer sujet

Fall River Habs

Rejoint: août 2021

Messages: 896

Mentions "j'aime": 339

Quoting: turtlemountain

Are you saying that there should not be any more posts about Monahan being traded? I think if you look at any trade bait list by any insiders he is near the top, so it is expected that he will be talked about quite a bit by the fans (unless I have missed your point).

Andy_Dick a aimé ceci.

21 janv. à 12 h 29

#57

Rejoint: juin 2015

Messages: 2,710

Mentions "j'aime": 3,025

Quoting: KentMcNally

No, not at all! I think that this has been a good discussion.

I’m saying that when inevitably this gets posted a ton today, instead of explaining every damn time why there would be pushback on Monahan for a kings ransom for a team where he’s an unclear fit, we can just link this.

Also, shoutout to you for being pleasant in this thread. There’s some insufferable fans here, but I appreciate when folks are actually willing to engage.

KentMcNally a aimé ceci.

21 janv. à 12 h 48

#58

Démarrer sujet

Fall River Habs

Rejoint: août 2021

Messages: 896

Mentions "j'aime": 339

Quoting: turtlemountain

Out of curiosity, who do you think are the 3 players that Colorado has at the top of their wish list?
I gotta think Lindholm might be #1, but I don’t know. Someone to back up Georgiev??

21 janv. à 12 h 52

#59

Rejoint: juin 2015

Messages: 2,710

Mentions "j'aime": 3,025

Quoting: KentMcNally

Out of curiosity, who do you think are the 3 players that Colorado has at the top of their wish list?
I gotta think Lindholm might be #1, but I don’t know. Someone to back up Georgiev??

Lindholm would be a good fit.

A solid backup to share the workload down the stretch. Allen would be interesting, but likely would need retention because of next year’s deal. I think a team like the Kings might pay for him to start.

A 4C to pk and take face offs would be nice too. Nothing sexy but you can generally get those relatively cheap

21 janv. à 13 h 1

#60

Démarrer sujet

Fall River Habs

Rejoint: août 2021

Messages: 896

Mentions "j'aime": 339

Quoting: turtlemountain

An Allen trade is tricky. Is good for a playoff team as a backup who could possibly step in if the starter falters in a series, but the retention is the big issue. Montreal wont’t want to pay too much for a super late round pick, but he only has so much value. In my opinion if Montreal could get a 4th or 5th without retention that would be ok. If they get a second (unlikely) or third with retention (like 35%) that might be in the right range.
Like I said, trading him is tricky (value-wise) for both sides.

Andy_Dick a aimé ceci.

22 janv. à 12 h 44

#61

Banni

Rejoint: févr. 2022

Messages: 5,094

Mentions "j'aime": 2,375

"This season, Monahan ranks 38th among all NHL forwards in completed passes at even-strength, according to SportLOGiQ. He has the seventh highest faceoff win percentage (56.9 percent), which is fifth among left-shooting centers, and he is the best at winning draws on the penalty kill (55.9 percent) – among centers with at least 600 faceoffs taken."

"According to NHL EDGE, Monahan is in the 95th percentile in high-danger shots on goal this season."

"Monahan is actually on track to collect more points than than former teammate Elias Lindholm this season – and is expected to be available at a lower price point by comparison. Why is that?"

Best of all..

"One of the huge plusses for Monahan is that every team in the league, even the most cap crunched, can afford him. They might be able to add multiple pieces if the Canadiens are willing to retain half his salary to pump up the return. There’s no reason to think they wouldn’t facilitate that. The bottom line is the Habs should be looking for another late first-round pick to add to their arsenal – which is an incredible swing for GM Kent Hughes, considering the Calgary Flames already gave them one to take Monahan off their hands in a salary cap dump."

Why @frank_seravalli breaks down a player whose faceoff prowess and worth ethic outweigh the injury concerns as a target for a contender's middle six.STORY:https://t.co/5wdqBsW9rl

— Daily Faceoff (@DailyFaceoff) January 22, 2024

Monahan worth the risk!

Comparable Trade Returns
March 21, 2022
To NY Rangers: Andrew Copp, 2023 6th Rd Pick
To Winnipeg: Conditional 2022 1st Rd Pick (No. 30 overall), 2022 2nd Rd Pick, 2023 5th Rd Pick, Morgan Barron

Feb. 24, 2020
To Tampa Bay: Barclay Goodrow, 2020 3rd Rd Pick
To San Jose: 2020 1st Rd Pick (No. 31 overall), Anthony Greco

Feb. 26, 2018
To Winnipeg: Paul Stastny (50% retained)
To St. Louis: 2018 1st Rd Pick (No. 29 overall), 2020 4th Rd Pick, rights to Erik Foley

Seravalli might actually be lurking here. lmao
It’s almost like the unbiased have a point when compared to the same dozen trolls that like to congregate and be tribalist ghouls en masse.

22 janv. à 13 h 7

#62

Banni

Rejoint: févr. 2022

Messages: 5,094

Mentions "j'aime": 2,375

Quoting: SupremeBone

No, you seem to be arguing against your own misinterpretation. My point was that his current numbers were achieved under a condition that he very likely wouldn't be in on a contending team and, as such, an argument formed on the basis of his offensive production alone will be weak to counters. Mine was a critique of the strength of his argument more than a critique of his conclusion. I address his conclusion in a separate paragraph.

Gaslighting.
Not sure how I missed this one!

You are also arguing a distinct position without taking in the whole picture. Saying Monahan wont necessarily be given PP1 elsewhere and that could mean his point totals go down is only true in a vacuum.

That is the fault in your argument as you completely dismiss the fact that he plays with lesser linemates at 5v5 in Evans, Armia, Gallagher.
You are masking every benefit that goes to a contender and are simply focused on the negatives. You'd probably find fault in McDavid's defensive metrics if he was traded going by your own misinterpretations. Your arguments are simply you going in circles over and over trying to find a red herring that isnt how to argue but how to gaslight to a T.

22 janv. à 14 h 40

#63

SupremeBone

Rejoint: juill. 2020

Messages: 2,545

Mentions "j'aime": 1,663

Quoting: Andy_Dick

Let me start off by saying that I think trying to psychologise this by tying it in with a loaded word like "gaslighting" is both unwise and unproductive but, given your manner of writing, I'll assume good faith on your part and respond in kind. Since you've gone so far as to call out my character through your assertion that I'm gaslighting, I feel the need to address this. My original comment was as follows:

"I think your argument comes up lacking in light of two details: 1.) it's based solely on offensive production meaning it comes up short when you try to compare him to Bergeron or even Compher (not saying Monahan is useless defensively, just that he isn't a particularly strong two-way C) and 2.) Monahan plays almost exclusively on PP1, which is something he wouldn't do on most contending teams (further hurting your argument based on offensive production). You may have more dimensions you could use to support your belief but, as it's laid out here, it's lacking.

I'm not saying it's impossible that he returns a 1st but I know that's a price I wouldn't pay- in general or for my team (EDM). If a team does, I imagine it'll be conditional based on that team reaching the conf. finals."

This is a comment that clearly states that his argument as presented comes up lacking and that, if he wants to make the case more clearly & convincingly, he should lay out a more comprehensive case as to why. In the second paragraph, I lay out my opinion on the matter of Monahan's trade value without having directly tried to substantiate it myself because, unlike the initial poster of this AGM, I didn't set out to try to convince others of my opinion on Monahan's value (hence his title "An argument supporting..."). To which the response was from a 3rd party saying:

"Your argument is flawed. We shouldn't consider his PP production because he wouldn't necessarily be on PP1?.... that makes no sense, "Let's not consider him as a PP option", but all teams want when they trade at the deadline are more options on the special teams. They're not going to trade for guys who can't provide on special teams.

I think it's Hands Down a given Habs get a 1st rounder. I don't even think it's enough to be fair."

Unless you'd like to point out to me the place at which I stated that "we shouldn't consider his PP production", I think you ought to be able to see how I'd consider this is a clear misinterpretation of what I said. Following this, I dare to commit the foul act of "gaslighting" (I restate: a term I think you're using entirely too liberally) by saying:

"No, you seem to be arguing against your own misinterpretation. My point was that his current numbers were achieved under a condition that he very likely wouldn't be in on a contending team and, as such, an argument formed on the basis of his offensive production alone will be weak to counters. Mine was a critique of the strength of his argument more than a critique of his conclusion. I address his conclusion in a separate paragraph."

To which one could counter as you did that his quality of linemate would also improve and, as such, could lead to an increase in 5-on-5 production. Your underlying assertion and that of the guy you claim I "gaslit" is that I failed to make a comprehensive argument to the contrary which presupposes that I intended to make such in the first place. That wasn't my intent. My only aim was to point out ways in which the OP's argument was unconvincing within their own evaluative framework (almost entirely focused on offense). The line where I say "You may have more dimensions you could use to support your belief but, as it's laid out here, it's lacking." should be evidence of this fact.

It may be fair to critique me by saying that if you're suggesting someone make a more comprehensive argument then you should make one yourself, but that critique would fall short in my opinion as, again, it's he who has the vested interest in trying to make a convincing argument, not me. I'm merely trying to offer feedback on a couple clear points of weakness in his argument that I identified in a cursory reading of it.

22 janv. à 14 h 56

#64