2023-24 Montreal Canadiens Discussion Thread

[tomh009]

Ylonen's qualifying offer is only $813K so I expect they would find a taker for him if he doesn't fit in their plans. But, right now, there is not much scoring talent left so I wouldn't think he would get traded until Hughes has acquired some new talent on F.

[Sir_Boagalott]

I'm not overly concerned about trading the wrong d-man - unless its WiFi that is moved.  I think it is more important that whoever they get must be better than what they give up.  As long as they end up with a player that vastly improves the team whichever dman is moved doesn't really matter. 

 

hypothetical example:  I'm not suggesting they should shop Guhle, but if he is highly sought after by the other GM's and could land the Habs a 30-40 g scorer that gets 70+ pts/yr - they have enough solid d prospects they could absorb losing Guhle.  Plus, if they traded Guhle before the draft they could pick 1 of the d-men that in the top 10 of this years draft and 2-3 years from now it is unlikely that we would regret moving Guhle no matter what his ceiling turns out to be.

 

They have so many prospects they could do similar with 1st rnd picks and trade all of them that are outside of the Top 10 in the next 2 drafts as long as they get a 40 g scorer that they have for 7 years it would be worth it.

 

 

 

[dlbalr]

5 hours ago, GHT120 said:

Ineligible to play for The Rocket at all (i.e., including the regular season).

 

He almost certainly wouldn't likely be playoff eligible, as I believe he would need to be on the Laval roster at the trade deadline (March 8th) and BU's regular season doesn't finish until the next day.

 

NOTE: NOT suggesting he would be signed so he could play in Laval, just curious about the rules.

 

He'd be ineligible for all Laval games this season, regular season and playoff.  The 'being on the roster' part doesn't just apply to the playoffs, it's any game after that.  Exceptions being ATO/PTO players which Hutson couldn't be because of his anticipated contract.

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

I'm not overly concerned about trading the wrong d-man - unless its WiFi that is moved.  I think it is more important that whoever they get must be better than what they give up.  As long as they end up with a player that vastly improves the team whichever dman is moved doesn't really matter. 

 

hypothetical example:  I'm not suggesting they should shop Guhle, but if he is highly sought after by the other GM's and could land the Habs a 30-40 g scorer that gets 70+ pts/yr - they have enough solid d prospects they could absorb losing Guhle.  Plus, if they traded Guhle before the draft they could pick 1 of the d-men that in the top 10 of this years draft and 2-3 years from now it is unlikely that we would regret moving Guhle no matter what his ceiling turns out to be.

 

They have so many prospects they could do similar with 1st rnd picks and trade all of them that are outside of the Top 10 in the next 2 drafts as long as they get a 40 g scorer that they have for 7 years it would be worth it.

 

 

 

So would you trade Guhle for Zegras? I sure the hell wouldn’t - but that I think we are a good match for Anaheim’s needs. It’s just too early to love Guhle unless you are getting a young forward who go would by far will be be the beat forward we’ve had in 30 years. I’m not trading Guhle for a guy who maybe a slight in kore productive Pactioretty.

[Commandant]

I dont think we are getting anything for Pearson.

[Sir_Boagalott]

29 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

So would you trade Guhle for Zegras? I sure the hell wouldn’t - but that I think we are a good match for Anaheim’s needs. It’s just too early to love Guhle unless you are getting a young forward who go would by far will be be the beat forward we’ve had in 30 years. I’m not trading Guhle for a guy who maybe a slight in kore productive Pactioretty.

 

Ya, big no on Zegras for Guhle because he's a) sorta small, and b) not a proven 30+ goal scorer - though he might eventually turn into one.  Plus, the players recently did a poll and Zegras came in 1st for the most overrated player.   I'm not 100% opposed to getting Zegras, but the Ducks want to dump him so I wouldn't over pay for him similar to what Hughes did with Newhook. 

 

I'd be trying somewhat lowball offers and see if any stick.  ex: Zegras went 1st rnd at 9th , so I'd offer a 1st thats 20th+ and possibly add a mid range F in Laval, and I'm not sure if I'd even add a prospect to sweeten the deal.  Most trade rumours I've seen for Zegras have been nutty.  ex:   a top 10 unprotected 1st + Harris + mid level F in Laval.  That would be an over payment to do the Ducks a favour taking him off their hands.

 

I should have said at the draft too.  ex:  if Lindstrom is taken by the time the Habs pick, Hughes could have a potential trade lined up with Guhle to get an established young F that scores a minimum of 30 g/yr with potential to hit 40g+ and then he could draft a dman that would be on par with Guhle and possibly better.  

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

So would you trade Guhle for Zegras? I sure the hell wouldn’t - but that I think we are a good match for Anaheim’s needs. It’s just too early to love Guhle unless you are getting a young forward who go would by far will be be the beat forward we’ve had in 30 years. I’m not trading Guhle for a guy who maybe a slight in kore productive Pactioretty.

 

Not super keen on re-living the Drouin trade, thanks

[alfredoh2009]

11 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Not super keen on re-living the Drouin trade, thanks

 

or reliving the Sergachev trade

[GHT120]

11 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Not super keen on re-living the Drouin trade, thanks

 

5 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

or reliving the Sergachev trade

 

So never trade a young defenceman again?

GMs can't have their hands tied by mistakes by their predecessors. 

[Commandant]

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

 

So never trade a young defenceman again?

GMs can't have their hands tied by mistakes by their predecessors. 

 

Its not about never trading a young defenceman.

 

Its about not liking a deal that is a stud defensive D in Guhle, for a guy in Zegras where there are serious questions about his overall game, especially his play without the puck.

[DON]

2 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Its not about never trading a young defenceman.

Any time Guhle gets mentioned as potential trade piece, all you hear is "Not Sergachev all over Again!"

 

I think is what he meant and i agree 100%.

Anyone is tradable and what does Bergevin's past deal have to do with future deals?

All GMs will screw up sooner or later, seems a given.

[alfredoh2009]

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

 

So never trade a young defenceman again?

GMs can't have their hands tied by mistakes by their predecessors. 

I poster a few days ago that I would trade the young LD that fetches the best return. Xhekaj and Guhle included if the player coming back improves the prospect of a cup run in the future.

I just don’t want to relive the fan snarky reaction if it turns out like the Sergachev deal. I do not want to relive that episode 

[REV-G]

I think it's absolutely foolish to draft a player like Guhle, develop him and see the potential of a top 2 or 3 defenceman and then trade him??

 

I would only include him in a trade if you were getting back a Dylan Larkin or a top level player that you will have for years and who will be a key member of your team.

 

To me a player like Guhle on the back end is equivalent or close to a Suzuki or Caufield on the front end.

 

I would, for the right player, include a Jordan Harris or a Barron with some other pieces, but for me, Guhle would not be a player I would want to move.   

[alfredoh2009]

25 minutes ago, REV-G said:

[...] I would only include him in a trade if you were getting back a Dylan Larkin or a top level player that you will have for years and who will be a key member of your team.

[...]

we agree on this, that is what I am saying in different words

[DON]

Pretty safe to say; no one would "want' to move Guhle.

But, it might make sense given the right return.

[Commandant]

27 minutes ago, DON said:

Pretty safe to say; no one would "want' to move Guhle.

But, it might make sense given the right return.

 

Sure, given the right return.  That return isnt Zegras IMO.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

None of the other young D we've seen have top-pairing potential. Only Guhle.

 

Sure, maybe Huston will. Maybe he won't. Maybe Reinbacher will. Maybe he won't. Right now, Guhle is it.

 

So yes, no one is untradeable. But of all our D, he is the one who comes closest to untouchable. It'd have to be a home run of a deal. 

 

(BTW, we didn't just get burned on Sergachev. We also threw away a top-pairing guy in McDonagh, and before that, a legit #1 in Eric Desjardins, and before that, all-time great Chelios - and every time, it was a trade of high-end young D for FWs. So as far as I'm concerned if we do it AGAIN it had better be for one hell of a player).

[alfredoh2009]

26 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

[...]

(BTW, we didn't just get burned on Sergachev. We also threw away a too-pairing guy in McDonagh, and before that, a legit #1 in Eric Desjardins, and before that, all-time great Chelios - and every time, it was a trade of high-end young D for FWs. So as far as I'm concerned if we do it AGAIN it had better be for one hell of a player).

 

Amen

[Sir_Boagalott]

37 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

None of the other young D we've seen have top-pairing potential. Only Guhle.

 

Sure, maybe Huston will. Maybe he won't. Maybe Reinbacher will. Maybe he won't. Right now, Guhle is it.

 

So yes, no one is tradeable. But of all our D, he is the one who comes closest to untouchable. It'd have to be a home run of a deal. 

 

(BTW, we didn't just get burned on Sergachev. We also threw away a too-pairing guy in McDonagh, and before that, a legit #1 in Eric Desjardins, and before that, all-time great Chelios - and every time, it was a trade of high-end young D for FWs. So as far as I'm concerned if we do it AGAIN it had better be for one hell of a player).

 

Yes, only Guhle is a legit top 4 hence that is why he could possibly be moved.  ex:  if you were a GM and had Cole, would you trade him for possibly maybe top 4 dman like Harris?  Of course not, there is no way anyone would do that.  Therefore, for the Habs to trade for a top 6 F they'd need to give up a top 4 dman.  The only dman that fits that which other GMs would likely accept would be Guhle.

 

I agree on all your examples of bad dmen trades and Chelios is the best example of why I wouldn't trade Arber.   

 

If Lindstrom is taken at the draft before the Habs pick they could potentially afford to trade Guhle during the draft for a F.  As long as they get a guaranteed 30+ goal scorer with potential for 40+ g/yr/ it would make sense.   If they did that they could draft a dman at the draft that who would likely be a top 4 dman.

 

 

 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

Yes, only Guhle is a legit top 4 hence that is why he could possibly be moved.  ex:  if you were a GM and had Cole, would you trade him for possibly maybe top 4 dman like Harris?  Of course not, there is no way anyone would do that.  Therefore, for the Habs to trade for a top 6 F they'd need to give up a top 4 dman.  The only dman that fits that which other GMs would likely accept would be Guhle.

 

I agree on all your examples of bad dmen trades and Chelios is the best example of why I wouldn't trade Arber.   

 

If Lindstrom is taken at the draft before the Habs pick they could potentially afford to trade Guhle during the draft for a F.  As long as they get a guaranteed 30+ goal scorer with potential for 40+ g/yr/ it would make sense.   If they did that they could draft a dman at the draft that who would likely be a top 4 dman.

 

 

 

 

Chelios was a Norris winner when he was traded. Wifi has done exactly what????

 

I don’t want to move him either, but comparing the idiotic trade to move Chelios for a pretty much washed up Savard, can never be a comparable for any potential deal for wifi. 
 

I think the D right is be most willing to move right now is Harris as part of a package with the Calgary or Jets pick for a stud young forward. 
 

And while I would not be liking to even consider moving Guhle for Zegras+. If we were offered Zegras for Wifi, I’d be making that deal before Verbeek went in for a much needed lobotomy.

 

wifi is no Chelios, McDonough, and probably won’t even be a Sergechev. He can probably carve out an Odelin type career. Best case scenario would be a Desjardins light, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

18 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

 

So never trade a young defenceman again?

GMs can't have their hands tied by mistakes by their predecessors. 

Fair point.  Obviously they are going to have to trade a young defensemen at some point. They just have to get it right and make sure they get good value. I wouldn't trade Guhle for Zegras 1 for 1 either. Zegras certainly has talent, just not convinced the character part is there. 

[Dalhabs]

6 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Chelios was a Norris winner when he was traded. Wifi has done exactly what????

 

I don’t want to move him either, but comparing the idiotic trade to move Chelios for a pretty much washed up Savard, can never be a comparable for any potential deal for wifi. 
 

I think the D right is be most willing to move right now is Harris as part of a package with the Calgary or Jets pick for a stud young forward. 
 

And while I would not be liking to even consider moving Guhle for Zegras+. If we were offered Zegras for Wifi, I’d be making that deal before Verbeek went in for a much needed lobotomy.

 

wifi is no Chelios, McDonough, and probably won’t even be a Sergechev. He can probably carve out an Odelin type career. Best case scenario would be a Desjardins light, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Wifi also have alot of added hype value that could give us more in a trade than we deserve.

[GHT120]

4 hours ago, Dalhabs said:

Wifi also have alot of added hype value that could give us more in a trade than we deserve.

Amongst fans and media ... not likely amongst most NHL general managers.

[Sir_Boagalott]

12 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Chelios was a Norris winner when he was traded. Wifi has done exactly what????

 

I don’t want to move him either, but comparing the idiotic trade to move Chelios for a pretty much washed up Savard, can never be a comparable for any potential deal for wifi. 

 

It definitely can be comparable.  The comparison is Chelios was 1 the toughest d-men in the NHL and that trade didn't work out well for them.  Not to mention Chelios played into his mid 40's.  Besides, what Habs fan doesn't regret trading Chelios?  The identical regret would almost be guaranteed if they dumped WiFi.

 

IMHO, the best comparison of skill and size for WiFi would be Byfuglien who averaged around 15-20 g/yr and Arber might eventually be able to get 10-15 g/yr.  If  Arber got PP time out front of the other teams net he could possibly match Buf's output.

 

Note:  in Buf's 5th season he got 11 g in 22 playoff games.  

 

No clue why people want to trade WiFi and risk watching similar happen with him playing on a team other than the Habs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I don't think Byfuglien is a comparable. That guy was a total freak, sui generis. He was also multi-positional.

 

I think the safe money is with Don in the other thread, i.e., WiFi becomes a third-pairing guy. But like some others here, I believe he has top-4 ceiling.