Proposal: Trade Thread #65

If you could get Hall with an extension, what's the maximum number of years you would extend him?


  • Total voters
    103
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sasha Orlov

Lord of the Manor
Sponsor
Jun 22, 2018
6,983
15,817
Sounds like one of dozen posters who have been saying the same thing. Gotta be one of them who opened a Twitter account and turned him or herself into an “insider.” :sarcasm:

It does sound like Weise’s account though — same name he’s using for his virtual show.
Twist: they're trading for more cap space so they can sign Dale "SHOWTIME" Weise and that's why he has inside info
 
  • Like
Reactions: Runner77

smirob

Registered User
Jun 2, 2014
4,864
991
Ekholm would be great BUT not at the expense of Caufield. We don't have enough prospects up front like him...

Our first and a lhd prospect (Not Romanov) + Lehkonen/Byron (for cap) I would be fine with.

Guhle is the one I'd be most hesitant to include, but honestly Ekholm would be an immediate boost for the next two years....and our left side is pretty stocked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miller Time

sheed36

Registered User
Jan 8, 2005
47,231
35,136
No Man's Land
Ekholm would be a great add as long as it doesn't include either Caufield or Guhle going the other way in the package. The Habs 1st + any other prospect not currently in the NHL and I'd be fine with it but I wouldn't move Caufield or Guhle for him. If the Preds did insist on either Caufield and Guhle being included I'd say no thanks and look elsewhere.
 

beowulf

Not a nice guy.
Jan 29, 2005
59,423
9,019
Ottawa
I would not be surprised now with this suspension of games until after March 28th, that the Habs don't make a move. They are running out of time and any trade with a US team means a quarantine for the players coming to Montreal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinodebino

McGees

Registered User
Jun 15, 2016
12,820
24,978
Now is the time to trade if you are going to. Several days off that can go towards the quarantine of player.
 

Benstheman

Registered User
Nov 20, 2014
6,759
2,926
Ekholm would be a great add as long as it doesn't include either Caufield or Guhle going the other way in the package. The Habs 1st + any other prospect not currently in the NHL and I'd be fine with it but I wouldn't move Caufield or Guhle for him. If the Preds did insist on either Caufield and Guhle being included I'd say no thanks and look elsewhere.
Pretty sure if the deal that can go down soon is for Ekholm, Guhle is the prospect included.
 

JimboJay

Registered User
Oct 9, 2018
150
108
Pretty sure if the deal that can go down soon is for Ekholm, Guhle is the prospect included.

Its a reasonable ask. Top prospect at the same position as Ekholm, + pick + mid tier roster player (Tatar?)

But from our standpoint the question is: does Ekholm make us a legit contender? If the team believes yes, then you make that deal. You have to take risks. At some point you have to leverage prospects against holes in your current lineup because you'll never have all of your own prospects will never lineup/pan out at the same time as your vets.

Im not convinced this makes us a bone fide contender but if the team does, i can see them making the move. IMHO no way CC is traded unless its part of a package for Eichel or Barkov or someone.
 

sheed36

Registered User
Jan 8, 2005
47,231
35,136
No Man's Land
Pretty sure if the deal that can go down soon is for Ekholm, Guhle is the prospect included.

And IMO that would be a mistake for what could be only 1 and less than half a season of a 30 year old Ekholm. Ekholm is good but moving a potential top 20 2021 pick plus the 16th pick from last year plus another piece is just too expensive for where the Habs are right now IMO.

Now if they were a legit cup contender this season it would make more sense but they're currently not so I'd rather keep the best prospects but that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deebs

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
89,093
55,416
Citizen of the world
Trading Guhle or Caufield for Ekholm is ridiculous idea.
Having Guhle in the same conversation as Caufield is even more ridiculous. Theres levels to this, and Caufield is much, much higher.

Guhle is not a blue chip prospect, he's pretty much a prospect that every team has, and most have more than one.
 

The Great Weal

Phil's Pizza
Jan 15, 2015
52,933
66,269
Having Guhle in the same conversation as Caufield is even more ridiculous. Theres levels to this, and Caufield is much, much higher.

Guhle is not a blue chip prospect, he's pretty much a prospect that every team has, and most have more than one.
I think Guhle is a good prospect and can be a top 4 dman, but I don't think he brings an element that we don't already have. The Habs need an offensive dynamo from the backend badly and Guhle isn't that. Habs need a dman who's got elite offensive or defensive instincts instead of being good all around. It's a lot easier to get good in other areas than becoming elite offensively or defensively.
 

le_sean

Registered User
Oct 21, 2006
40,256
40,736
Pretty sure if the deal that can go down soon is for Ekholm, Guhle is the prospect included.

Guhle won’t be going. The kid is everything Bergevin dreams about when he thinks of the ideal hockey player and defenceman. I’m sure he sees a future captain there. I just don’t see it. In fact I would expect Caufield to go before Guhle, knowing Bergevin.
 

BigDaddyLurch

Have some PRIDE, Eric...
Sponsor
Mar 1, 2013
21,800
18,274
Principle's Office
Having Guhle in the same conversation as Caufield is even more ridiculous. Theres levels to this, and Caufield is much, much higher.

Guhle is not a blue chip prospect, he's pretty much a prospect that every team has, and most have more than one.

...and yet you still offer up other picks/prospects first before you even consider losing Guhle, cuz Ekholm alone doesn't instantly make the Habs a contender...there has to be a plan and other moves in the Q as well...otherwise, the risk doesn't outweigh the immediate reward of getting stomped in the early rounds...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miller Time

Miller Time

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
23,124
15,521
Ekholm would be great BUT not at the expense of Caufield. We don't have enough prospects up front like him...

Our first and a lhd prospect (Not Romanov) + Lehkonen/Byron (for cap) I would be fine with.

Guhle is the one I'd be most hesitant to include, but honestly Ekholm would be an immediate boost for the next two years....and our left side is pretty stocked.

not sure I'd add a 1st to Ghule personally... i don't think we are Ekholm away from contending this year or next, and with what that kid has shown thus far, wouldn't be a reach to see him in the lineup by the fall of 2022 or 2023, at which point the progress of Suzuki/JKO/Poehling/Caufield/Romanov + the contract vets in place (Gally, Toffoli, Anderson, Petry, Price, Weber) will make it very useful to have 1-2 ELC players good enough to be regulars to give us the cap space needed to make an aggressive futures for now type move to push us over the top.

if they'll take Harris/Norlinder/Strubble/Brook + 1st + a Lekhonen/Mete/Kulak... i'm in. Caufield/Ghule/Romanov imo should stay off limits unless it's in a package for an elite top pairing/first line type asset that becomes part of the long term core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Wallach

Hannibal

Fear the Weber
Feb 11, 2007
10,312
7,277
Having Guhle in the same conversation as Caufield is even more ridiculous. Theres levels to this, and Caufield is much, much higher.

Guhle is not a blue chip prospect, he's pretty much a prospect that every team has, and most have more than one.

When did i compared caufield and guhle lol

You don’t trade one of your top 2 prospects for a 30 year old player. Big mistake ala Mcdonagh.
 

Locks

Registered User
May 28, 2005
946
443
Guhle won’t be going. The kid is everything Bergevin dreams about when he thinks of the ideal hockey player and defenceman. I’m sure he sees a future captain there. I just don’t see it. In fact I would expect Caufield to go before Guhle, knowing Bergevin.

I agree. There is no way MB moves Guhle. With Weber declining, MB sees Guhle as a major piece together with Romanov of their defence for years to come. Caufiled and Guhle must both be untouchable in his mind.
 

Miller Time

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
23,124
15,521
Having Guhle in the same conversation as Caufield is even more ridiculous. Theres levels to this, and Caufield is much, much higher.

Guhle is not a blue chip prospect, he's pretty much a prospect that every team has, and most have more than one.

and a year ago the same could be said of Caufield... this time next year, if Guhle continues to progress the way he has since being drafted, very possible that he's moved his way up the prospect rankings just like Caufield did in the past year.

that's not to say Guhle should be untouchable, but given our current and near-term situation, I'd put Guhle in the same category as Caufield as far as trade chip goes (i.e not unless in a package for elite, long-term solution).

JKO/Romanov/Suzuki

Caufield / Ghule

Poehling, brook, strubble, harris, norlinder, ylonen, primeau (could debate a few other names in this group... Mysak, Tuch et....)

the rest....

four tiers of youth/prospect value for us imo
 

Deebs

There's no easy way out
Feb 5, 2014
16,926
13,569
When did i compared caufield and guhle lol

You don’t trade one of your top 2 prospects for a 30 year old player. Big mistake ala Mcdonagh.
I agree. Unless we're a legitimate contender, that move just shouldn't be made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad