Player Discussion Kaiden Guhle

[Benstheman]

You didn't answer my question though. Suzuki became a true #1 C last year, before that he was a good young 2C. Do you think today's Guhle has as much value as Suzuki had back then?

If you think Beniers has 1C potential, then Guhle has 1D potential.

 

[Naslundforever]

Don’t rush him. We need him for the long run. Not for a near meaningless playoffs run.

I’m no doctor but a healed clean cut to a muscle probably heals stronger than the muscle? I mean.. His leg won’t come undone and is not held together with wires I would not think, it’s fresh muscle fiber, no?.. A messed up tendon sounds way less predictable imo. Call me Dr. RecchiForever.

Easy coaching call if healthy after that loss imo.

Edit- chatgpt telling me lacerations heal with scar tissue as well and do not just heal super fast with “fresh fiber”… 3-6 months full recovery and maybe never full strength it says. Makes sense.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I’m no doctor but a healed clean cut to a muscle probably heals stronger than the muscle? I mean.. His leg won’t come undone and is not held together with wires I would not think, it’s fresh muscle fiber, no?.. A messed up tendon sounds way less predictable imo. Call me Dr. RecchiForever.

Easy coaching call if healthy after that loss imo.

Let's ask the doctor.

@VirginiaMtlExpat

 

[Naslundforever]

Let's ask the doctor.

@VirginiaMtlExpat

yeah I chat gpt’d it (don’t judge)… scarring tissue is a thing (edited my post)

“
A healed muscle laceration can recover a lot of its original strength, but it’s unlikely to be exactly as strong as it was before. Muscle tissue has a good capacity for repair, but the healing process doesn’t always restore the muscle to its original condition. Instead of just fresh muscle fibers regrowing seamlessly, the repair process involves some scar tissue formation, which is less flexible and less contractile than normal muscle fibers. This can slightly reduce strength and elasticity in the affected area.


Healing Timeline:


• Initial healing (1–2 weeks): The body forms a blood clot, inflammation occurs, and satellite cells (muscle stem cells) start regenerating muscle fibers.


• Regeneration and remodeling (3–6 weeks): New muscle fibers grow, but some scar tissue may form at the injury site.


• Full recovery (3–6 months or more): Strength and function gradually return through rehabilitation and strength training.


If the muscle is properly rehabilitated, the surrounding fibers can compensate, and strength can be close to pre-injury levels. However, if rehab is neglected or excessive scar tissue forms, the muscle could remain slightly weaker or less flexible.

 

[Mrb1p]

Guhle is a 3rd defenseman, I would say his value = a good 2nd line center.

Guhle isnt a #3, hes a top pair D and one of the best 5v5 ice-tilter in the NHL.

 

[Vachon23]

Guhle will not only be an important player piece of our blue line but an important player in the lockeroom. Many beat reporters have said that Guhle could be the capitaine of this team.

You don’t trade him

 

[Guiness time]

Guhle will not only be an important player piece of our blue line but an important player in the lockeroom. Many beat reporters have said that Guhle could be the capitaine of this team.

You don’t trade him

If the price is right, you would not trade him?

I like Guhle as much as anyone on hfboards, but to say he is untradeable is a bit of a stretch, which is where this latest discussion started.

One poster said he is worth a 1C...if that is the case, I would definitely consider trading him with our LD depth, how could you not consider it???

Does this mean I want to trade him for a 32 year old center on the decline? of course not, but if you offered me a young player doing well and on the rise, I would definitely consider it as it's our major hole at the moment.

To summarize, I doubt an opposing team offers us the value we believe Guhle is worth, but to say he is untouchable is crazy talk with all of our LD prospects that are NHL caliber and the fact we have no true #2C coming up to our team any time soon. If a team wants Guhle, I would definitely listen, but I am definitely not selling him on black Friday prices. Any trade made would be to clearly solve a major issue on our team, which is consistent secondary scoring.

 

[BJCOLLINS]

If the price is right, you would not trade him?

I like Guhle as much as anyone on hfboards, but to say he is untradeable is a bit of a stretch, which is where this latest discussion started.

One poster said he is worth a 1C...if that is the case, I would definitely consider trading him with our LD depth, how could you not consider it???

Does this mean I want to trade him for a 32 year old center on the decline? of course not, but if you offered me a young player doing well and on the rise, I would definitely consider it as it's our major hole at the moment.

To summarize, I doubt an opposing team offers us the value we believe Guhle is worth, but to say he is untouchable is crazy talk with all of our LD prospects that are NHL caliber and the fact we have no true #2C coming up to our team any time soon. If a team wants Guhle, I would definitely listen, but I am definitely not selling him on black Friday prices. Any trade made would be to clearly solve a major issue on our team, which is consistent secondary scoring.

Do you remember how happy we were with 1#C Gomez? He cost us #1D McDonagh!
Do you remember Drouin? He cost us #1D Sergachev!!
How about Chelios? Langway??

We have lots of trade capital, assets & picks that can be packaged before we need to move young, core d…..especially if a #2 C is your target. Cheers.

 

[Goldenhands]

Guhle isnt a #3, hes a top pair D and one of the best 5v5 ice-tilter in the NHL.

He will be #3 behind Hutson and Reinbacher, you can bet on that. Still, I like Guhle and Im not trading him unless the return is huge.

 

[Guiness time]

Do you remember how happy we were with 1#C Gomez? He cost us #1D McDonagh!
Do you remember Drouin? He cost us #1D Sergachev!!
How about Chelios? Langway??

We have lots of trade capital, assets & picks that can be packaged before we need to move young, core d…..especially if a #2 C is your target. Cheers.

I have been a habs for all of these trades, although I was quite young for Chelios and Langway, but I remember them. Yes, painful moves, but does this mean we stop entertaining offers? No more trades????

As I said in my previous post, I am not a fan of moving Guhle, the only point I am making is that he is not untouchable for the right price.

My target would be a center with offensive potential anywhere from 20 to 23 rys old that could make an impact on our team in the following season or the season after AND potentially be a # 1 C or a solid #2C that IMPROVES our team for many years. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but that is only way I trade him.

Would I prefer to trade future picks and prospects for a #1C or a #2C ? Of course I would, but not all teams are looking for that return, so other options must be considered if you want to advance our rebuild.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Vachon23]

If the price is right, you would not trade him?

I like Guhle as much as anyone on hfboards, but to say he is untradeable is a bit of a stretch, which is where this latest discussion started.

One poster said he is worth a 1C...if that is the case, I would definitely consider trading him with our LD depth, how could you not consider it???

Does this mean I want to trade him for a 32 year old center on the decline? of course not, but if you offered me a young player doing well and on the rise, I would definitely consider it as it's our major hole at the moment.

To summarize, I doubt an opposing team offers us the value we believe Guhle is worth, but to say he is untouchable is crazy talk with all of our LD prospects that are NHL caliber and the fact we have no true #2C coming up to our team any time soon. If a team wants Guhle, I would definitely listen, but I am definitely not selling him on black Friday prices. Any trade made would be to clearly solve a major issue on our team, which is consistent secondary scoring.

I mean if SJ offer me Celebrini then of course ! But that won’t happen so no

 

[Ozmodiar]

Do you remember how happy we were with 1#C Gomez? He cost us #1D McDonagh!
Do you remember Drouin? He cost us #1D Sergachev!!

the lesson here is don’t trade for bad players.

It’s entirely reasonable to trade a D if a good player is coming back.

 

[Guiness time]

I mean if SJ offer me Celebrini then of course ! But that won’t happen so no

We are talking about Guhle, not Hutson. There is no way SJ would even consider trading Celebrini for 2 Guhles !!!

As I said before, you need to trade quality to get quality. Sure, you can wait to buy cheap, but seems to me we are so close to being in WIN mode, why would you not entertain propositions for Guhle ? I am not saying he should be on the trade block, just saying he is not untouchable.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Let's ask the doctor.

@VirginiaMtlExpat

There are actual physicians here who are better positioned than me (I'm a PhD, not an MD). My areas of BME are at the organ and whole-body level, while this healing process is at the cellular and tissue level (my regen med colleagues could weigh in better than me). If I had to speculate though, I would think that there is no difference. It's not like the original strands on both sides of the cut are ever going to rejoin exactly as they started out, so as long as there is reasonable contact from both sides of the cut, and the conditions for tissue healing are maintained (there may be ways of speeding it up e.g. hyperbaric oxygen therapy), it shouldn't matter much. I'd like to do some experiments, but graduate students are notoriously recalcitrant about volunteering for such experiments.

 

[Vachon23]

We are talking about Guhle, not Hutson. There is no way SJ would even consider trading Celebrini for 2 Guhles !!!

As I said before, you need to trade quality to get quality. Sure, you can wait to buy cheap, but seems to me we are so close to being in WIN mode, why would you not entertain propositions for Guhle ? I am not saying he should be on the trade block, just saying he is not untouchable.

Of course I know they wouldn’t do that, I was exaggerating to say that I wouldn’t move him.

I wouldn’t move him because having 3 good Dmen is as important then having 2 good center

 

[BJCOLLINS]

the lesson here is don’t trade for bad players.

It’s entirely reasonable to trade a D if a good player is coming back.

No team “knowingly” trades for a bad player? That’s kinda the point.

It’s one step forward two steps back…….so If we trade a first pairing D man with potential Norris ceiling for a potential #2 centre that leaves us with, Hey, all we need now is a #1 defensive Dman???

 

[habdynasty]

Be good to get the best dman on the team back.

 

[Scriptor]

I mean if SJ offer me Celebrini then of course ! But that won’t happen so no

Trades don't need to be about pick-pocketing the other team. a hockey trade involving Guhle could be made and benefit both teams.

Of course, any trade involving Guhle -- so that the trade doesn't regularly circle back to bite you in the arse -- would ideally be done with a team in the Western Conference.

As much as I am a fan of Guhle, I don't think that he needs to be part of the team down the line for Montreal to win a 25th Cup.

If losing Guhle comes with the benefit of gaining a solid 2C that is more of a 1B for te next 7 to 10 years, I don't see how that doesn't benefit us more than assembling a patchwork of stop-gap 2Cs that don't provide any consistency in the lineup at that position during this version of the Habs.

IMO, Montreal will not be picking top-3 for a while now, even without this elusive top-6 C to play on another top-6 line.

Waiting to see if Hage is our 2C (1B) of the future is a waste of at least three more years for Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, Demidov and three prime years of Laine (if we keep him). It's also three wasted years of Hutson, Reinbacher and Guhle, as we circle back to Guhle.

Hage will not be an impact forward -- if even a C -- before another three years have gone by, under the best of circumstances. As solid a prospect as he is, Hage is not some exceptional beast waiting to gnaw off the bridle so he can assault the NHL. He will need to develop and iron out some flaws in his game, refine some strengths, mature physically, get accustomed to the tempo at the NHL level, etc.

Instead of wasting at least three important development years of all the players listed above, years that will assist in helping them reach another gear as NHLers and help the team, overall, to reach a higher level, I'd rather trade Guhle, or Guhle ++ now to address the 2C issue immediately, depending on the quality of the young C coming back (I'd prefer to pay Guhle ++ with Guhle being the only current core player from Montreal in the deal, but to get a better young C in return).

Landing a quality 2C right now would increase the odds of Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, Caufield, Hutson and Reinbacher becoming the best versions of themselves that they can be as we mature into as Cup contender after three more years.

By then, if we're lucky, Hage will be ready to become an impact player at the NHL level and could well become that as a top-6 winger, instead of as a top-6 C.

Nobody has a crystal ball, but adding a genuine 2C starting next year will definitely help develop everyone up front and on the back end because of the right seats that will get assigned to the right players and because of the responsibilities this 2C would rightfully assume.

The only problem with this discussion is that we have no idea what C Guhle might provide the Habs with in their search to become a Cup contender.

I think it is clear that the Habs are not in a win-now position to trade a young stud LD for an ageing veteran with a couple of seasons left at a high level in order to win a Cup.

I certainly don't suggest moving Guhle under those circumstances.

Montreal needs a steadying 2C that will be around for at least the next 7 years, slotting in immediately and contributing to a 3-4 year window for a 25th Cup. He could then be replaced to extend the window.

 

[Scriptor]

No team “knowingly” trades for a bad player? That’s kinda the point.

It’s one step forward two steps back…….so If we trade a first pairing D man with potential Norris ceiling for a potential #2 centre that leaves us with, Hey, all we need now is a #1 defensive Dman???

Guhle with a potential Norris ceiling? Nah, not really.

 

[Ozmodiar]

No team “knowingly” trades for a bad player? That’s kinda the point.

It’s one step forward two steps back…….so If we trade a first pairing D man with potential Norris ceiling for a potential #2 centre that leaves us with, Hey, all we need now is a #1 defensive Dman???

Your point appeared to be - look what happens when we trade our D. it sounded very gun shy based on past mistakes… a bad way to operate.

If they scout properly and trade for a quality player who will be a key part of their future, then it isn’t 2 steps back.

BTW … talking about Guhle here. Not a future Norris D. They’d still have their future top pairing intact. Hutson - Reinbacher

 

[Scriptor]

We are talking about Guhle, not Hutson. There is no way SJ would even consider trading Celebrini for 2 Guhles !!!

As I said before, you need to trade quality to get quality. Sure, you can wait to buy cheap, but seems to me we are so close to being in WIN mode, why would you not entertain propositions for Guhle ? I am not saying he should be on the trade block, just saying he is not untouchable.

No, it's not like we are trying to flog Guhle, but I suspect his name would likely come up as we poke around asking about young Cs that are already established and on the rise.

Anton Lundell is an example (just an example). If FLA's GM, looking to keep his Cup window open, decides to and manages to extend Bennett at C, adding a D like Guhle could help strengthen the D-Corps and provide more shutdown prowess from the back end. I suspect it would take a candidate as a replacement 3C coming back from Montreal and we could add one of Newhook, Evans, Beck or Kapanen to the deal.

I think it would end up being Guhle + Newhook VS Lundell.

Both sides of the coin will argue that this is paying too much, whether it is Lundell for Guhle + Newhook, or Guhle + Newhook for Lundell.

What Montreal gets in Lundell is:

SCOUTING REPORT

The Finnish forward plays the kind of two-way game NHL coaches preach. He stepped into the NHL after two seasons playing as a teenager in the Liiga in Finland because of his playmaking skills and game away from the puck. He should continue to grow into his body as he matures, but his all-around game is already good enough to play at the NHL level.

Long Range Potential: Quality, versatile two-way forward with offensive upside.

Lundell's already solid defensive play at the NHL level will help confirm his TOI in a 2C role, making him a top-6 C that the coaching staff can depend on in all game situations.

Lundell's playmaking skills are what the doctor ordered if he ends up playing on a line with Laine and Demidov.

Lundell, cette année, comme 3e centre, devrait friser les 50 points dans sa 4e saison complète en Floride.

C'est difficile de croire que sa production offensive ne serait pas en hausse dès l'an prochain abec Laine et Demidov comme ailiers. Il agirait aussi comme conscience défensive pour Laine.

Je verrais bien Lundell devenir un deuxième centre d'entre 60 et 70 points, tout en étouffant l'attaque de nos adversaires.

Montréal peut se permettre de surpayer un peu car il ne sera pas prêt pour se battre pour une coupe immédiatement.

In the short term (next two years with Anderson and Gallagher):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Anderson - Evans - Gallagher
Heineman - Beck - Roy/Kapanen/F. Xhekaj

Matheson - Carrier
Struble - Hutson
A. Xhekaj - Reinbacher

Montembeault
Dobes

In the medium term (in three years):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen
F. Xhekaj - Evans - Beck

Fowler
Dobes

For the long term (4 + years from now):

Slafkovsky - Suzuki - Demidov
Caufield - Lundell - Laine
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen/2025 draft pick
F. Xhekaj - Beck - Kapanen/UFA/draft pick

Hutson - Reinbacher
Matheson - UFA
A. Xhekaj - Mailloux

Fowler
Dobes

 

[malcb33]

No, it's not like we are trying to flog Guhle, but I suspect his name would likely come up as we poke around asking about young Cs that are already established and on the rise.

Anton Lundell is an example (just an example). If FLA's GM, looking to keep his Cup window open, decides to and manages to extend Bennett at C, adding a D like Guhle could help strengthen the D-Corps and provide more shutdown prowess from the back end. I suspect it would take a candidate as a replacement 3C coming back from Montreal and we could add one of Newhook, Evans, Beck or Kapanen to the deal.

I think it would end up being Guhle + Newhook VS Lundell.

Both sides of the coin will argue that this is paying too much, whether it is Lundell for Guhle + Newhook, or Guhle + Newhook for Lundell.

What Montreal gets in Lundell is:

SCOUTING REPORT

The Finnish forward plays the kind of two-way game NHL coaches preach. He stepped into the NHL after two seasons playing as a teenager in the Liiga in Finland because of his playmaking skills and game away from the puck. He should continue to grow into his body as he matures, but his all-around game is already good enough to play at the NHL level.

Long Range Potential: Quality, versatile two-way forward with offensive upside.

Lundell's already solid defensive play at the NHL level will help confirm his TOI in a 2C role, making him a top-6 C that the coaching staff can depend on in all game situations.

Lundell's playmaking skills are what the doctor ordered if he ends up playing on a line with Laine and Demidov.

Lundell, cette année, comme 3e centre, devrait friser les 50 points dans sa 4e saison complète en Floride.

C'est difficile de croire que sa production offensive ne serait pas en hausse dès l'an prochain abec Laine et Demidov comme ailiers. Il agirait aussi comme conscience défensive pour Laine.

Je verrais bien Lundell devenir un deuxième centre d'entre 60 et 70 points, tout en étouffant l'attaque de nos adversaires.

Montréal peut se permettre de surpayer un peu car il ne sera pas prêt pour se battre pour une coupe immédiatement.

In the short term (next two years with Anderson and Gallagher):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Anderson - Evans - Gallagher
Heineman - Beck - Roy/Kapanen/F. Xhekaj

Matheson - Carrier
Struble - Hutson
A. Xhekaj - Reinbacher

Montembeault
Dobes

In the medium term (in three years):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen
F. Xhekaj - Evans - Beck

Fowler
Dobes

For the long term (4 + years from now):

Slafkovsky - Suzuki - Demidov
Caufield - Lundell - Laine
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen/2025 draft pick
F. Xhekaj - Beck - Kapanen/UFA/draft pick

Hutson - Reinbacher
Matheson - UFA
A. Xhekaj - Mailloux

Fowler
Dobes

Lundell would be an excellent addition, but I suspect the Panthers will let Bennett walk, and Lundell will be his replacement. If Bennett resigns, I could see Hughes being aggressive and try to pry Lundell out of Florida.

 

[billy piton]

Trades don't need to be about pick-pocketing the other team. a hockey trade involving Guhle could be made and benefit both teams.

Of course, any trade involving Guhle -- so that the trade doesn't regularly circle back to bite you in the arse -- would ideally be done with a team in the Western Conference.

As much as I am a fan of Guhle, I don't think that he needs to be part of the team down the line for Montreal to win a 25th Cup.

If losing Guhle comes with the benefit of gaining a solid 2C that is more of a 1B for te next 7 to 10 years, I don't see how that doesn't benefit us more than assembling a patchwork of stop-gap 2Cs that don't provide any consistency in the lineup at that position during this version of the Habs.

IMO, Montreal will not be picking top-3 for a while now, even without this elusive top-6 C to play on another top-6 line.

Waiting to see if Hage is our 2C (1B) of the future is a waste of at least three more years for Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, Demidov and three prime years of Laine (if we keep him). It's also three wasted years of Hutson, Reinbacher and Guhle, as we circle back to Guhle.

Hage will not be an impact forward -- if even a C -- before another three years have gone by, under the best of circumstances. As solid a prospect as he is, Hage is not some exceptional beast waiting to gnaw off the bridle so he can assault the NHL. He will need to develop and iron out some flaws in his game, refine some strengths, mature physically, get accustomed to the tempo at the NHL level, etc.

Instead of wasting at least three important development years of all the players listed above, years that will assist in helping them reach another gear as NHLers and help the team, overall, to reach a higher level, I'd rather trade Guhle, or Guhle ++ now to address the 2C issue immediately, depending on the quality of the young C coming back (I'd prefer to pay Guhle ++ with Guhle being the only current core player from Montreal in the deal, but to get a better young C in return).

Landing a quality 2C right now would increase the odds of Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, Caufield, Hutson and Reinbacher becoming the best versions of themselves that they can be as we mature into as Cup contender after three more years.

By then, if we're lucky, Hage will be ready to become an impact player at the NHL level and could well become that as a top-6 winger, instead of as a top-6 C.

Nobody has a crystal ball, but adding a genuine 2C starting next year will definitely help develop everyone up front and on the back end because of the right seats that will get assigned to the right players and because of the responsibilities this 2C would rightfully assume.

The only problem with this discussion is that we have no idea what C Guhle might provide the Habs with in their search to become a Cup contender.

I think it is clear that the Habs are not in a win-now position to trade a young stud LD for an ageing veteran with a couple of seasons left at a high level in order to win a Cup.

I certainly don't suggest moving Guhle under those circumstances.

Montreal needs a steadying 2C that will be around for at least the next 7 years, slotting in immediately and contributing to a 3-4 year window for a 25th Cup. He could then be replaced to extend the window.

defense wins championships. edmonton and toronto have two #1 c and couldn't win the cup. hutson, reinbacher and guhle will be our d core and trading any of them would create a hole at least as big as one you'd fill with that trade.

 

[BJCOLLINS]

No, it's not like we are trying to flog Guhle, but I suspect his name would likely come up as we poke around asking about young Cs that are already established and on the rise.

Anton Lundell is an example (just an example). If FLA's GM, looking to keep his Cup window open, decides to and manages to extend Bennett at C, adding a D like Guhle could help strengthen the D-Corps and provide more shutdown prowess from the back end. I suspect it would take a candidate as a replacement 3C coming back from Montreal and we could add one of Newhook, Evans, Beck or Kapanen to the deal.

I think it would end up being Guhle + Newhook VS Lundell.

Both sides of the coin will argue that this is paying too much, whether it is Lundell for Guhle + Newhook, or Guhle + Newhook for Lundell.

What Montreal gets in Lundell is:

SCOUTING REPORT

The Finnish forward plays the kind of two-way game NHL coaches preach. He stepped into the NHL after two seasons playing as a teenager in the Liiga in Finland because of his playmaking skills and game away from the puck. He should continue to grow into his body as he matures, but his all-around game is already good enough to play at the NHL level.

Long Range Potential: Quality, versatile two-way forward with offensive upside.

Lundell's already solid defensive play at the NHL level will help confirm his TOI in a 2C role, making him a top-6 C that the coaching staff can depend on in all game situations.

Lundell's playmaking skills are what the doctor ordered if he ends up playing on a line with Laine and Demidov.

Lundell, cette année, comme 3e centre, devrait friser les 50 points dans sa 4e saison complète en Floride.

C'est difficile de croire que sa production offensive ne serait pas en hausse dès l'an prochain abec Laine et Demidov comme ailiers. Il agirait aussi comme conscience défensive pour Laine.

Je verrais bien Lundell devenir un deuxième centre d'entre 60 et 70 points, tout en étouffant l'attaque de nos adversaires.

Montréal peut se permettre de surpayer un peu car il ne sera pas prêt pour se battre pour une coupe immédiatement.

In the short term (next two years with Anderson and Gallagher):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Anderson - Evans - Gallagher
Heineman - Beck - Roy/Kapanen/F. Xhekaj

Matheson - Carrier
Struble - Hutson
A. Xhekaj - Reinbacher

Montembeault
Dobes

In the medium term (in three years):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen
F. Xhekaj - Evans - Beck

Fowler
Dobes

For the long term (4 + years from now):

Slafkovsky - Suzuki - Demidov
Caufield - Lundell - Laine
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen/2025 draft pick
F. Xhekaj - Beck - Kapanen/UFA/draft pick

Hutson - Reinbacher
Matheson - UFA
A. Xhekaj - Mailloux

Fowler
Dobes

LOL, let’s leave HuGo in charge & you stick to your day job! LOL, cheers.

 

[Benstheman]

No, it's not like we are trying to flog Guhle, but I suspect his name would likely come up as we poke around asking about young Cs that are already established and on the rise.

Anton Lundell is an example (just an example). If FLA's GM, looking to keep his Cup window open, decides to and manages to extend Bennett at C, adding a D like Guhle could help strengthen the D-Corps and provide more shutdown prowess from the back end. I suspect it would take a candidate as a replacement 3C coming back from Montreal and we could add one of Newhook, Evans, Beck or Kapanen to the deal.

I think it would end up being Guhle + Newhook VS Lundell.

Both sides of the coin will argue that this is paying too much, whether it is Lundell for Guhle + Newhook, or Guhle + Newhook for Lundell.

What Montreal gets in Lundell is:

SCOUTING REPORT

The Finnish forward plays the kind of two-way game NHL coaches preach. He stepped into the NHL after two seasons playing as a teenager in the Liiga in Finland because of his playmaking skills and game away from the puck. He should continue to grow into his body as he matures, but his all-around game is already good enough to play at the NHL level.

Long Range Potential: Quality, versatile two-way forward with offensive upside.

Lundell's already solid defensive play at the NHL level will help confirm his TOI in a 2C role, making him a top-6 C that the coaching staff can depend on in all game situations.

Lundell's playmaking skills are what the doctor ordered if he ends up playing on a line with Laine and Demidov.

Lundell, cette année, comme 3e centre, devrait friser les 50 points dans sa 4e saison complète en Floride.

C'est difficile de croire que sa production offensive ne serait pas en hausse dès l'an prochain abec Laine et Demidov comme ailiers. Il agirait aussi comme conscience défensive pour Laine.

Je verrais bien Lundell devenir un deuxième centre d'entre 60 et 70 points, tout en étouffant l'attaque de nos adversaires.

Montréal peut se permettre de surpayer un peu car il ne sera pas prêt pour se battre pour une coupe immédiatement.

In the short term (next two years with Anderson and Gallagher):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Anderson - Evans - Gallagher
Heineman - Beck - Roy/Kapanen/F. Xhekaj

Matheson - Carrier
Struble - Hutson
A. Xhekaj - Reinbacher

Montembeault
Dobes

In the medium term (in three years):

Caufield - Suzuki - Slafkovsky
Laine - Lundell - Demidov
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen
F. Xhekaj - Evans - Beck

Fowler
Dobes

For the long term (4 + years from now):

Slafkovsky - Suzuki - Demidov
Caufield - Lundell - Laine
Heineman - Hage - Roy/Kapanen/2025 draft pick
F. Xhekaj - Beck - Kapanen/UFA/draft pick

Hutson - Reinbacher
Matheson - UFA
A. Xhekaj - Mailloux

Fowler
Dobes

Guhle for Lundell would be fair but by doing that, you created one of the shittiest D I have ever seen and you still have a big hole to fill on right D.