Some are happy to hear this, but many others hear the very same words and they think this means that every player Hugo target must be in the mold of Gordie Howe.
On top of that, the modern-day Howe must be willing to play for below market value, and be the right age. Having to be the right age excludes anyone on a bridge contract, because if they are as good as we want them to be, they will ask for more money than we think they are worth (now). It also excludes anyone over 25 who needs a long-term deal because that would put them in the old-age home by the end of their deal, just when we might start to compete (i.e. 2031 or 2032)
The opposing GMs must be willing to trade these proven, complete players for draft picks no better than late first rounders (never again overpay like we did for an incomplete player like Newhook). They must also value salivate for those youngsters whom we have decided will probably never be core players for us, and thus we are willing to include. If that does not satisfy the GM on the other side of the table, Montreal is only allowed to sweeten the deal with players 30 and up whose contracts we all here agree are too rich and too long.
Oh, one more thing. These studs coming in must not improve the team enough to cause us to draft worse than top-5, until and unless we are ready with a serious shot at winning the Cup, which must apparently be overnight at some point.
Major sarcasm, there.
It isn't incompatible to address skill and size in the same targeted player.
It is, however, rare to see such a player dangled in the first place, barring undisclosed side issues, and even rarer to see them dangled at thrift store prices.
You want such a high end forward, it will cost you; high end D or early first round draft pick, with, or more.
A lotto Hab fans approach trades as how Hughes can fleece some other GM clearly undeserving of the job.
That's farcical and overly prevalent as seen in many trade propsals which your sarcasm evokes.
You want a top-end, younger forward that isn't a locker room cancer in a trade, the first ask will likely be Guhle, and that needs be from a team that is in win-now mode and also has a surplus of quality forwards. Those teams are rarer than an Elvis Presley sighting at a rave.
Guhle also won't be the only piece that needs be headed the other way.
You'd likely need to include a forward with potential (even if the likelihood of that player becoming the forward that they give up is low) and a 1st round pick.
So, for a top end young forward - say Kyrou from the Blues -- Montreal would likely have to give up Guhle + one of Roy or Beck + the WIN 2024 draft pick. That also might not be enough tory Kyrou free from the St-Louis market.
Luckily, Montreal will have the Cap room to accommodate such a move and take on 8.125M over 7 more years from Kyrou's long term contract, while sending an ELC contract for Guhle, Roy or Beck and futures in the form a late 1st round pick, a net addition of considerable Cap space.
Guhle's next contract likely won't be as high as Kyrou's contract, IMO.
Would you give up Guhle + one of Roy or Beck + the WIN first round pick in 2024 for a player like Kyrou?
Would the prospect of eventually aligning the following top-6 make it worthwhile:
Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Lindstrom/Iginla - Dach - Kyrou
If Roy is traded for Kyrou, that leaves a speedy tandem of Newhook - Beck to build a 3rd line around.
If Beck is traded for Kyrou, that leaves a high hockey IQ tandem of Newhook (C) - Roy to build a 3rd line around.
At that point, regardless of what tandem you build a 3rd line around, a winger is easily snagged from the UFA market.
On D, the loss of Guhle removes a shutdown, first pairing D from the equation in Montreal, but the relative upside and talent of the prospect pool at D for the Habs might well make sacrificing Guhle worthwhile if we can acquire a young, established impact forward who can score and create like Kyrou.
We are still left with Reinbacher, another shutdown D with first pairing upside to eventually pair up with the offensive dynamo that Hutson can be.
We still have the veteran, offensive presence of Matheson and an up-and-coming two-way D that can play the right side and whose D-game is already a strength in Engstrom. As a third pairing,wealready saw chemistry in a Xhekaj-Mailloux pairing.
Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Lindstrom/Iginla - Dach - Kyrou
Newhook - Beck - UFA / UFA - Newhook - Roy
Hutson - Reinbacher
Matheson - Engstrom
Xhekaj - Mailloux