hab29RETIRED Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 51 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said: Maybe Hague is meant to replace Guhle? Just spitballing because that rumour makes no sense. Guhle is the piece the other team wants for their centre so Hughes is thinking of replacing him with Hague? 🤷♂️ Hague seems as a guy that is in between 2nd/3rd pairing, while Guhle is 1st/2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 hour ago, BCHabnut said: I dont know man. Ghule is darn solid. And still learning. He's our slavin. He also has missed 38, 12 and 27 games in his three seasons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 2 minutes ago, GHT120 said: He also has missed 38, 12 and 27 games in his three seasons McTavish has also missed games the last couple of seasons as well. Skate caused laceration isn’t one of those injury prone type injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said: Maybe Hague is meant to replace Guhle? Just spitballing because that rumour makes no sense. Guhle is the piece the other team wants for their centre so Hughes is thinking of replacing him with Hague? 🤷♂️ No rumour of Guhle being traded at all, just rumour or noted by one media fellow (at combine i think) that Guhle is looked upon by other teams as a nice young player they like. I guess rest should be in trade thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said: if we can get McTavish for Matheson, 16th and Mailloux or Xhejac or another d prospect (not including Reinbacher), I’d make the move. Otherwise I’d rather look at other options. So in other words, as long as the Habs get the best player and give up lesser pieces, you're fine with it. What's in it for Anaheim then? Matheson as a rental does little for a rebuilding team and the 16th pick + Mailloux isn't worth a centre not far removed from being a top-three pick. If you're going to acquire a player of McTavish's calibre, the return is going to hurt in a big way. Otherwise, the Ducks have no reason to do it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildTurkeyXX Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 And yes, purely hypothetical. Apologies if this should've been in a different category. Buddy had mentioned the idea of Guhle in a trade, and it sounded like an idea worth talking through. But I knew if we were to stick with it I'd have to create a scenario rich enough to warent Guhle considerable as a trade option. I picked McTavish because I figured he would probably be near the top of everyone's fantasy wishlist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 22 minutes ago, WildTurkeyXX said: And yes, purely hypothetical. Apologies if this should've been in a different category. Buddy had mentioned the idea of Guhle in a trade, and it sounded like an idea worth talking through. But I knew if we were to stick with it I'd have to create a scenario rich enough to warent Guhle considerable as a trade option. I picked McTavish because I figured he would probably be near the top of everyone's fantasy wishlist. no trouble in doing that, just needed a bit more work to make the deal plausible for the other team. My trade proposal to send Primeau to PHI had more holes than your proposal, it was fun to throw the idea and see what others thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 41 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said: no trouble in doing that, just needed a bit more work to make the deal plausible for the other team. My trade proposal to send Primeau to PHI had more holes than your proposal, it was fun to throw the idea and see what others thought You mean you've given up on it?😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoh2009 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 4 minutes ago, GHT120 said: You mean you've given up on it?😉 No, sometimes I beat on that dead horse for kicks 😅 ☠️ 🐴 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 hour ago, dlbalr said: If you're going to acquire a player of McTavish's calibre, the return is going to hurt in a big way. Otherwise, the Ducks have no reason to do it. Absolutely. Giving up a young forward with a lot of potential, especially a center, can really come back to haunt you (.ie Joe Thornton comes to mind immediately) so you better get a good return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 3 hours ago, dlbalr said: So in other words, as long as the Habs get the best player and give up lesser pieces, you're fine with it. What's in it for Anaheim then? Matheson as a rental does little for a rebuilding team and the 16th pick + Mailloux isn't worth a centre not far removed from being a top-three pick. If you're going to acquire a player of McTavish's calibre, the return is going to hurt in a big way. Otherwise, the Ducks have no reason to do it. I doubt if the want to move McTavish, but you never know, they wanted Mailloux last year in the Zegras deal. so they are obviously interested. They are reportedly trying to add more veterans up front and D to make a playoff push - just traded for Kreider and are reportedly in on Toews, so they may have an interest in Matheson (who has had more points in a season than McTavish to date, is on a affordable deal, and is at an age that would make him an attractive veteran to extend). We could also offer one of our 3rd line centre prospects to the deal. Carlson is probably their future #1 centre, so who knows, there may be interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: Absolutely. Giving up a young forward with a lot of potential, especially a center, can really come back to haunt you (.ie Joe Thornton comes to mind immediately) so you better get a good return. There is a big difference. Thornton already had a 100 point season with Boston and was on pace for another 100 point season when he was traded. So McTavish isn’t even close as a comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 11 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: I doubt if the want to move McTavish, but you never know, they wanted Mailloux last year in the Zegras deal. so they are obviously interested. They are reportedly trying to add more veterans up front and D to make a playoff push - just traded for Kreider and are reportedly in on Toews, so they may have an interest in Matheson (who has had more points in a season than McTavish to date, is on a affordable deal, and is at an age that would make him an attractive veteran to extend). We could also offer one of our 3rd line centre prospects to the deal. Carlson is probably their future #1 centre, so who knows, there may be interest. I agree with Brian. there is a less than zero chance that they trade Mctavish for Matheson and Mailloux and a third line C prospect. None. that proposal is very one-sided. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said: There is a big difference. Thornton already had a 100 point season with Boston and was on pace for another 100 point season when he was traded. So McTavish isn’t even close as a comparable. Yes, not a great comparison when I thought about it in more detail. Thornton was much more advanced but still relatively young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 46 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: Yes, not a great comparison when I thought about it in more detail. Thornton was much more advanced but still relatively young. I’d also say Matheson, Mailloux, Beck/Kapanan and the 16th is more than what Boston got for Thornton who was a 100 point player, while we don’t know that Mcatavish is yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 8 hours ago, GHT120 said: He also has missed 38, 12 and 27 games in his three seasons The injuries are concerning for sure. I wish he was more careful about taking hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 19 hours ago, BCHabnut said: I dont know man. Ghule is darn solid. And still learning. He's our slavin. It would have to be a 1B centre with defensive, offensive ability and grit. But I'm a bit of a Ghule fan, so maybe I'm biased. Also, thank you for blatherskite. My daughter has an arts degree, but she doesn't broaden my vocabulary nearly as much as you! Found another synonym for trump. No, I share your concern - Guhle is a rock-solid, very valuable all-around player. One of those guys who quietly eats hard minutes. It’s just…if we want to get back a truly good #2C in a seller’s market, we may have to give back something we really don’t want to lose. 🤷♂️ ‘Blatherskite’ is a perfect word for the raging Orange Id down south, yes! 18 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said: Maybe Hague is meant to replace Guhle? Just spitballing because that rumour makes no sense. Guhle is the piece the other team wants for their centre so Hughes is thinking of replacing him with Hague? 🤷♂️ LD are easier to find than impact C, so if Guhle gets you the latter and you can substitute another LD, then Bob’s your uncle. But Hague seems more like yet another #5-6 LD. If we’re acquiring him, then some other reconfiguration of the D seems to be in mind…unless they’re finally giving up on Xhekaj? Hague actually seems more likely a Savard replacement. It’s a very intriguing rumour because, as you say, it doesn’t seem to make a ton of sense unless attached to further moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 13 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said: I doubt if the want to move McTavish, but you never know, they wanted Mailloux last year in the Zegras deal. so they are obviously interested. They are reportedly trying to add more veterans up front and D to make a playoff push - just traded for Kreider and are reportedly in on Toews, so they may have an interest in Matheson (who has had more points in a season than McTavish to date, is on a affordable deal, and is at an age that would make him an attractive veteran to extend). We could also offer one of our 3rd line centre prospects to the deal. Carlson is probably their future #1 centre, so who knows, there may be interest. It's one thing to be interested in Mailloux for a player like Zegras, a player whose value is decreasing. It's another to want him as a core part of a deal for a player who they probably still value as a 1C, even with Carlsson likely holding that role for them long-term. Just because McTavish would be their long-term 2C doesn't mean the asking price in a trade will be at a 2C level. Anaheim's prospect pool is quite deep (some might argue deeper than Montreal's, even) so a quantity-for-quality trade is something they have no reason to do. 10 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said: I’d also say Matheson, Mailloux, Beck/Kapanan and the 16th is more than what Boston got for Thornton who was a 100 point player, while we don’t know that Mcatavish is yet. I'm not sure a trade that was widely panned when it was made 20 years ago is the proper comparison when assessing the value of an offer. Beating that is a low bar to clear but doesn't make it fair value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 hour ago, dlbalr said: I'm not sure a trade that was widely panned when it was made 20 years ago is the proper comparison when assessing the value of an offer. Beating that is a low bar to clear but doesn't make it fair value. Was about to say the very same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHT120 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 15 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said: They are reportedly trying to add more veterans up front and D to make a playoff push - just traded for Kreider and are reportedly in on Toews Are they pushing for a playoff spot? Kreider could just be a veteran replacement for UFA Robby Fabri to better support their youngsters. On defence they already have, for one more year, Trouba (31) and Gudas (35) on the blueline (2nd and 3rd in TOI last season) ... unless one of them is involved in the (or another) trade I doubt they need Matheson ... unless they are making a BIG push for the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 3 hours ago, GHT120 said: Are they pushing for a playoff spot? Kreider could just be a veteran replacement for UFA Robby Fabri to better support their youngsters. On defence they already have, for one more year, Trouba (31) and Gudas (35) on the blueline (2nd and 3rd in TOI last season) ... unless one of them is involved in the (or another) trade I doubt they need Matheson ... unless they are making a BIG push for the playoffs. I had heard Friedman say they are looking to get in next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said: I had heard Friedman say they are looking to get in next year. I think they are but they're going to go about it by trying to sign free agents or acquire veterans on the cheap as they did with Trouba and Kreider, not by trading away core young talent. Verbeek also seems to have a type, so to speak, basically anyone who hits at a high level seems to be his preferred type of acquisition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said: I had heard Friedman say they are looking to get in next year. Absolutely they are, getting Krieder who is 34 is a clear signal they want some immediate improvement. They are not far from competing for a playoff spot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 Friedman said today (32 thoughts) that Granlund is gonna get paid (and likely more than Dallas can afford). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: Absolutely they are, getting Krieder who is 34 is a clear signal they want some immediate improvement. They are not far from competing for a playoff spot I am super happy that Hughes did not resort to getting a 34yo Kreider type in order to get the Habs into the playoffs. Maybe we need someone like that when we are ready to fight for the Cup but this deal seems awfully early in the rebuild process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.