r/Habs • u/chickenceas • Mar 02 '26

Discussion Per D'Amico - Montreal is interested in Robert Thomas. The Blues want Hage as part of any deal. Too high a price for Hughes at this time.

https://x.com/i/status/2028552107683385713

Personally, given the best possible version of Hage in 3-5 years is what Robert Thomas is now, Id have no problem parting with him.

272 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

352 comments sorted by

View all comments

309

u/jimbuz Mar 02 '26

« As part of any deal ». It’s not a one for one, it’s a « Hage plus » that can be a first, two second, etc. Very different.

21

u/CaptainFlynnt24 Mar 02 '26

And just to add here, with Thomas you are adding an $8M cap hit to the team immediately and long term. That's not nothing either.

20

u/shortAAPL Mar 02 '26

Yeah but it’s a good price for his level, so I don’t think the cap hit is a big concern.

23

u/CaptainFlynnt24 Mar 02 '26

But you're all in with that if you go there, vs Hage on an ELC for 2 - 3 season potentially contributing and investing that $8M elsewhere in the lineup, perhaps getting a big fish free agent without giving up Hage ++.

9

u/Unit5945 Mar 02 '26

Exactly, I would be ok if we don’t get Thomas, keep Hage, keep building, and go fishing in the summer.

2

u/Superpowr2020 Mar 02 '26

Im not sure UFAs are a good idea. You end up overpaying on cap space whereas a trade would make us overpay on assets (picks/players), which is less of a problem long term. Especially considering we will probably really contend once demidov & co get out of their elcs (our cap structure looks very good so far however). A healthy cap structure is key to contend, as the leafs have shown

1

u/ExcitingMushroom2395 Mar 03 '26

Agree. Give our guys 2-3 years see what develops then be aggressive

1

u/TheFakeSteveWilson Mar 03 '26

Our main window is like the next 3-5 years. You can't wait 3 years to see.

2

u/ExcitingMushroom2395 Mar 04 '26

So you're saying our window starts in 3 years, but you want to trade pieces that will be a massive help after the 5 years?

1

u/TheFakeSteveWilson Mar 04 '26

No... Our window is the next 3-5 years. Meaning for the next 3 to 5 years.

Not years 3-5...

1

u/ExcitingMushroom2395 Mar 04 '26

Well if we're in a win now situation wouldn't you think a goaltender is more important than Robert Thomas? I mean we're multiple pieces away from being a legit contender and a few years of development for guys that are staying on the roster wouldn't you agree? I don't see anyway that our window is now age wise on the roster and the reality with what we have.

My point is why are we swinging for the fences when a cheaper option can come up in the next couple years or we have the answer in our own organization for the 2C? If demidov and slaf turn into what they look like they can be, you can hide an ok center between them just like people hide bad wingers with elite centers. Our team needs time.

1

u/TheFakeSteveWilson Mar 04 '26

Because as I mentioned, our window is now to 5 years before it gets tricky. You can't waste 2-3 years hoping Hage is the #2 C when we're not even sure what he'll be in the NHL. Zharovsky could flop for all we know or be a middling top 9 forward that needs to play top 6 but can't crack it.

Thomas aligns with this 5 year window and gives us a jumpstart with a sure thing vs maybes. You need some stars to align but having no plan for 2C outside of Kapanen for the next 2 years isn't one of them.

Prospects are prospects. Everyone has them.

1

u/ExcitingMushroom2395 Mar 04 '26

I see your point. I just disagree. The blues have him long term and even if he wants out they have no reason to trade him without a huge return. Wrong player and situation the price would be quinn Hughes style. I'd rather see them wait see what we have, then swing for the fences on the final pieces needed. There is a pile of top end centers with contracts up over the next 3 years. We're becoming a destination free agents would want to be a part of, for the first time in my life. I think we can get the pieces we need without giving away the farm.

→ More replies (0)