Proposal: Vancouver Canucks-Montreal Canadiens

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,164
25,915
East Coast
Habs want Kotkaniemi and he might not be available at 7. Then what? The idea is the Habs want a grade A prospect with upside at center. So any deal that we make by trading the 3rd pick, we would require a grade A prospect at center. Just don't see a deal here.

I know the development in the last 12 months changes things but would you trade the 3rd pick for Pettersson? I suspect not so this should make you understand our position with our pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hindustan Smyl

Shanejones

Registered User
Jun 12, 2018
191
31
Eastern passage
Here’s a big big big IF.

IF Benning has justifiable reason to believe that Hughes is not only a class above Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard, but would eventually be in that Provorov/Werenski category,.........while also believing that Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard would be decent 2nd pairing defensemen at best, would this kind of deal be advisable?

To Montreal: 7OA, 2019 1st
To Vancouver: 3OA, 2019 2nd
Not even close
 

Horse McHindu

They call me Horse.....
Jun 21, 2014
9,668
2,650
Beijing
How about Van gives up 7 oa this year, a second next year and Sven for Montreal’s 3 oa?

Sven Baertschi?

I would be willing to do that IF Benning and the scouting team felt that there was ample evidence to support the notion that Hughes

1) was a class above the other defensemen not named Dahlin

2) would not be available at 7

3) Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard would be good 2nd pairing dmen at best.

If the scouting team felt that there was ample evidence to support this notion, then I would absolutely make that deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shanejones

THE Green Man

Registered User
Dec 27, 2013
2,965
721
Narnia
Here’s a big big big IF.

IF Benning has justifiable reason to believe that Hughes is not only a class above Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard, but would eventually be in that Provorov/Werenski category,.........while also believing that Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard would be decent 2nd pairing defensemen at best, would this kind of deal be advisable?

To Montreal: 7OA, 2019 1st
To Vancouver: 3OA, 2019 2nd


This is so bad for Vancouver. We are not giving up our 2019 lottery pick in a draft we are hosting. Plus you are way too into Hughes IMO. Good player but not who we should be targeting, especially not if we trade up to 3.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,068
4,467
Vancouver
Here’s a big big big IF.

IF Benning has justifiable reason to believe that Hughes is not only a class above Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard, but would eventually be in that Provorov/Werenski category,.........while also believing that Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard would be decent 2nd pairing defensemen at best, would this kind of deal be advisable?

To Montreal: 7OA, 2019 1st
To Vancouver: 3OA, 2019 2nd

We might lose one choice of D in the draft, and we give up a first in a draft we host? To move up 4 spots? I will pass sir.
 

ole ole

Registered User
Oct 7, 2017
11,937
6,015
Here’s a big big big IF.

IF Benning has justifiable reason to believe that Hughes is not only a class above Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard, but would eventually be in that Provorov/Werenski category,.........while also believing that Dobson/Boqvist/Bouchard would be decent 2nd pairing defensemen at best, would this kind of deal be advisable?

To Montreal: 7OA, 2019 1st
To Vancouver: 3OA, 2019 2nd
As a Habs fan i think i would do this.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->