Probably too much for Hall even with an extension

I was expecting to hear the opposite. Something to the tune of "Suzuki or nothing." I figured it would be a Top 6 forward/Top4 Dman, an A-/B+ prospect and a 1st rounder. I added the 4th and 5th so Montreal would win the bid among other teams and can afford to part with a few picks.

I'd actually prefer Jeremy Davies back from NSH rather than SS!

Vatanen for a 1st rounder. He's a top 4 D almost anywhere.

Shero cannot possibly justify the Hall trade to the Devils fanbase if the principle return is a veteran forward playing a middle six role. I want prospects/picks or a top 4 young D.

Really? I would rather have Santini back, would be a nice 6th D-man with some physicality behind Severson and Subban. Davies is to similar too Butcher and Smith.

I'm basing it on the Stone trade. I personally would rather have Stone on my team than Hall. But that trade was a blue chip, a throw in, and a 2nd. With an extension

I do think a comparable would be something like Suzuki/Poehling/Brook/Ylonen, a 2nd and maybe Weal? I'm not super familiar with Montreal this season

I couldn't say Tatar was a throw-in. He is a perennial 20 goal scorer, he did have a lower value while struggling on Vegas, but he had more evidence of being a decent 2nd line winger than a declining forward. As of now he has shown he can be Top 6 (rather than a middle 6) forward. Suzuki (A prospect) > Poehling/Brook (A- prospects) > Ylonen (B+ prospect arguably). For Hall I did the reverse of the Stone trade. Skimped on the quality of the prospect and increased the value in draft picks.

The Canadiens have a lot of prospects to develop and even still have a good amount of draft picks so they can afford to trade some futures for immediate help. They just need to upgrade Kulak on D to someone like Zadorov or Klefbom and they could be pretty good right now rather than middling the pack.

I think any team trading for Hall is not trading for a rental, it's for an extension. There really is no point trading for him as a rental. Rental players should be middle 6 forwards, and bottom 4 Dmen. If you're picking up a top line forward or a top pairing Dman and not re-signing them, you're likely losing too much for a rental. It just doesn't seem like a prudent move.

You are correct here.

Problem is he never became that guy, and I wanted him to succeed in that role.n He was def not given enough time to get there by Hynes and Co.. You are right with Davies, but I'd rather go get a Zads or similar if we are going that route (which we should do at least with one of our d men)

What would a Zadorov trade to NJ look like? We're renting Vatanen? I don't know if I'd like that. Would you take a Kamenev or Nichushkin too so he has some Russian homies? I doubt you'd say Butcher, we're a tad scorned from his abandonment. It did turn out to be kind of a non-trade trade. You signed Butcher out of college, we signed Kerfoot out of college.

NJ needs to be building for the future. Adding a decent player today to lower the return tomorrow isn't very productive for them. And I also don't know if Hall is going to be anything other than a rental. He seems pretty set on at least seeing what's out there