HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #84: Off-Season edition

[ReHabs]

The current context couldn’t be further from Bergevin’s hollow promises and contradictions.

There is really nothing to judge now. There were only 3 assets on expiring contracts this deadline and one of them was an injury concern and obviously had no takers. No one was interested in Drouin and the third, Dadonov found a taker even if most in here thought he’d gather no interest.

As for the players on multi-year contracts, the trading deadline was not the best time to move them and those players with extra contract years that did find takers, were deemed better acquisitions by the market. The only one that perhaps was the exception, Edmundson, scared off potential suitors on account of recurring back issues. What was Hughes supposed to sell, core players just to land another pick?

The point of my post is that there wasn’t much more Hughes could do at this juncture. The idea of focusing on summer activity is that for the first time, Hughes will have substantial cap room to work with. That’s just 3 months away, not next year or on some undefinable timeline as in Bergevin’s universe.

I commend Hughes for staying the course and for having made inroads on the arduous task of ditching excess baggage. And for targeting a player profile that fits a defined strategy of what he wants this team to look like.

The fact that he couldn’t land a third 1st rounder doesn’t make him a failure, nor worthy of criticism. This whole thing of him having to improve the draft stock for him to avert criticism is a huge straw man. Did he not show that he was capable of bold, high upside moves when he orchestrated a move to acquire Dach last summer? Or how he was creatively able to deal off Weber’s contract? Landing a first rounder for Monahan? Selecting Hutson when all teams passed?

Hence my comment — this summer is really the time when the type of assets he’ll have on hand, can actually offer transactional options. If he were to blatantly fail on those opportunities through acts imputable to his negligence, then I can see a reason to let him have it.

Of course, to each their own. We’ll agree yo disagree.

I don't disagree with a single word you wrote here, for the record.

I think Hughes has demonstrated he is good at selling valuable assets for good returns. A worthwhile skill for sure but not the most important thing. His acquisition of Dach is certainly good too. And of course, MSL. Everything else, tbd... and I'm being charitable here with Slafkovsky. Let's just see how Hughes and the Habs get on.

In any case, since he's a rookie GM with no track record the whole cult of personality thing (not that you're doing it) should be nipped in the bud before it becomes an invasive infection like Bergevinitis.

 

[Runner77]

I don't disagree with a single word you wrote here, for the record.

I think Hughes has demonstrated he is good at selling valuable assets for good returns. A worthwhile skill for sure but not the most important thing. His acquisition of Dach is certainly good too. And of course, MSL. Everything else, tbd... and I'm being charitable here with Slafkovsky. Let's just see how Hughes and the Habs get on.

In any case, since he's a rookie GM with no track record the whole cult of personality thing (not that you're doing it) should be nipped in the bud before it becomes an invasive infection like Bergevinitis.

I wouldn’t want to live through another cult of anything to be honest, as cults infer negative undertones and are not sustainable.

I just want to judge management based on merit. The best negotiator needs selling arguments and I don’t see too many that were available to Hughes this deadline in respect of what he was attempting to move. Hence, my position to defer to this summer’s activities.

Were he to come out of this summer empty-handed, then I would look at his methods, how he handled his opportunities, how he deployed the resources made available to him and whether he’s surrounded himself with the right people.

I’d also be looking as to whether his statements are consistent with his actions. Hughes doesn’t strike me as someone who just blurts out stuff but even so, I’m not looking for reputation points.

Ideally, I’d hope for a businesslike approach premised on underpromising and overdelivering. I just don’t believe that was possible now in this low, depleted and/ or flawed ammo context.

 

[Miller Time]

Hughes put together a better team than expected this year and his gamble with all the rookie D-men worked out marvellously to add, his best move was hiring MSL for sure. I think there are many encouraging and optimistic things around the Habs these days for sure but it's fair to say the TDL is usually where you pick up draft assets and he didn't manage to do so this year. Is it worthy of criticism? I think sure. And if he manages to improve our draft stock from now until the draft, he'll be worthy of praise.

Wether or not the trade deadline is "usually" where draft assets move is irrelevant to the evaluation of Hughes's or any other GMs specific deadline decisions.
Context always matters.

The assets Hughes had at his disposal this deadline that were expendable and coveted were limited. Last year they weren't, and he moved aggressively.

It's tough to see what your critique is based on. What trade do you feel was on the table that he didn't take advantage of?

He added Gurianov for Dadonov & a 5th for cap space.
Drouin, like JVR, had no takers.

I don't think there's any doubt Hoffman, Gally or Armia would be gone if a trade was possible without taking equal or worse contracts back.

Pitlick? Wideman? No market there...

Monahan... injured.

It's not about excuses to justify decisions made, it's the context he was navigating.

He didn't get the price he wanted for Anderson, Edmundson or Dvorak. Given the propensity of rumours that all 3 drew offers, that's the only real place to critique his decision-making at the deadline.

I'd argue that since none were a must to move on & cap space alone isn't worth moving them for peanuts, waiting to get the value he set was the right play...

Gotta separate out disappointment in the situation from disappointment in the decisions.

 

[HuGort]

He has gotten cold lately. He does not look like a 1C in terms of the point production you would expect but he does look like a good 2C. Of course the money matters and any deal for him depends on an extension being worked out. If he is looking for a stupid amount then no deal is to be had. Just like if the Jets want too much no deal can be had. I am just saying that if he is available, then we should be checking into him.

PLD been tempermental player in past. He's going to be in a fish bowl. Not sure if good move or not. I get the size thing though. But it's a lot of money and trade pieces we have to give up. Plus he has to be willing to play the wing or third line center. Or we trade either Dach or Suzuki.

 

[ReHabs]

He didn't get the price he wanted for Anderson, Edmundson or Dvorak. Given the propensity of rumours that all 3 drew offers, that's the only real place to critique his decision-making at the deadline.

I agree he didn't have an excess of cards to play but he's the GM and he's responsible for the medical department's performance, the draft picks he's chosen (and rushed to the NHL for no reason), the expectations he sets on the trade market, and so on. Taking a step back and looking at the picture says that we didn't do well at the TDL -- other teams amassed futures and draft capital and we did not.

I don't have much more criticism at this time but there is definitely an argument to be made that this TDL prior to the 2023 draft was a missed opportunity.

We're not GMs, we don't know the prices and the discussions -- we knew that Monahan was injured (for dubious and oft-hidden injury reports), we knew that Drouin and Dadanov were nearly worthless, we knew that Eddy was injured, etc. But we don't know what was offered for Anderson or Dvorak, we don't know what offers he turned down, we don't know if he played hardball and fell on his ass. We'll likely never know any of that.

My thesis was that selling Dvorak was vital to our interests in completing this tank year. I would've sold him for very little to help ensure we draft top5. Whatever amount we recover from selling him later is not worth the difference between a 10OA pick and a 5OA pick, no in this season's draft, anyway.

Otherwise, I agree -- we don't need to raise the rabble and call for his head, nor do we need to take bullets for him and chastise those who are disappointed. It is still too early.

CC @Runner77

 

[Habssince89]

Obviously I wish more happened but injuries got in the way and we still ended up moving one of the bad contracts to get an interesting young NHLer in Gurianov

 

[Whalers Fan]

What about your 4thC...

My suggestion was that if Monahan is brought back, moving Dvo is easier because we'd be looking at

Suzuki - Dach - Monahan - Evans/Beck.

That's more than reasonable C depth for a team in our situation.

Add a depth veteran C to the mix in the fall if they don't see enough out of Beck at rookie camp/training camp, or keep the runway open if he forces the issue.

I don't think that's at all unreasonable or overly optimistic.

In that scenario, both Monahan and Evans have been injury-prone, and we have already discussed that Beck may not be ready for the NHL. That center group is pretty shaky, IMO.

 

[Scriptor]

The current context couldn’t be further from Bergevin’s hollow promises and contradictions.

There is really nothing to judge now. There were only 3 assets on expiring contracts this deadline and one of them was an injury concern and obviously had no takers. No one was interested in Drouin and the third, Dadonov found a taker even if most in here thought he’d gather no interest.

As for the players on multi-year contracts, the trading deadline was not the best time to move them and those players with extra contract years that did find takers, were deemed better acquisitions by the market. The only one that perhaps was the exception, Edmundson, scared off potential suitors on account of recurring back issues. What was Hughes supposed to sell, core players just to land another pick?

The point of my post is that there wasn’t much more Hughes could do at this juncture. The idea of focusing on summer activity is that for the first time, Hughes will have substantial cap room to work with. That’s just 3 months away, not next year or on some undefinable timeline as in Bergevin’s universe.

I commend Hughes for staying the course and for having made inroads on the arduous task of ditching excess baggage. And for targeting a player profile that fits a defined strategy of what he wants this team to look like.

The fact that he couldn’t land a third 1st rounder doesn’t make him a failure, nor worthy of criticism. This whole thing of him having to improve the draft stock for him to avert criticism is a huge straw man. Did he not show that he was capable of bold, high upside moves when he orchestrated a move to acquire Dach last summer? Or how he was creatively able to deal off Weber’s contract? Landing a first rounder for Monahan? Selecting Hutson when all teams passed?

Hence my comment — this summer is really the time when the type of assets he’ll have on hand, can actually offer transactional options. If he were to blatantly fail on those opportunities through acts imputable to his negligence, then I can see a reason to let him have it.

Of course, to each their own. We’ll agree yo disagree.

Yo!

 

[Runner77]

I agree he didn't have an excess of cards to play but he's the GM and he's responsible for the medical department's performance, the draft picks he's chosen (and rushed to the NHL for no reason), the expectations he sets on the trade market, and so on. Taking a step back and looking at the picture says that we didn't do well at the TDL -- other teams amassed futures and draft capital and we did not.

I don't have much more criticism at this time but there is definitely an argument to be made that this TDL prior to the 2023 draft was a missed opportunity.

We're not GMs, we don't know the prices and the discussions -- we knew that Monahan was injured (for dubious and oft-hidden injury reports), we knew that Drouin and Dadanov were nearly worthless, we knew that Eddy was injured, etc. But we don't know what was offered for Anderson or Dvorak, we don't know what offers he turned down, we don't know if he played hardball and fell on his ass. We'll likely never know any of that.

My thesis was that selling Dvorak was vital to our interests in completing this tank year. I would've sold him for very little to help ensure we draft top5. Whatever amount we recover from selling him later is not worth the difference between a 10OA pick and a 5OA pick, no in this season's draft, anyway.

Otherwise, I agree -- we don't need to raise the rabble and call for his head, nor do we need to take bullets for him and chastise those who are disappointed. It is still too early.

CC @Runner77

That’s just the thing — no GM is going to open his playbook about any of the players still on his roster that he wasn’t able to move, for obvious reasons. Some insider might leak out a smidgen here and there but that won’t provide you with the type of behind the scenes info to an extent that you may find satisfactory.

I personally don’t need that level of access as I have more than enough info to go on, as it is.

Look at Hughes’ performance since he was named and decide if his past actions allow you to place your trust in him for situations like this one, where there were no significant results.

Dvorak is just another average overpaid asset who is not a difference-maker. Trading him wasn’t going to accomplish anything. As @Miller Time convincingly argued, it’s all about context. We don’t need to have behind the scenes access to know that Hughes was dealt a poor hand.

As for the other points, too early to tell if Slaf was mishandled. It’s not as if he rushed everyone as Ghule, Harris, Arber, by way of example did not look out of place. The medical dept. may be under his responsibility (or maybe it’s Gorton’s?) but he’s only had them under his purview for one year — he’s already committed to reviewing its staff at the end of the season, so why not wait for the outcome of his review?

The expectations he’s set on the trade market appear to have produced very desirable results based on the trades he’s made since being named.

The players that were drafted? We’ll need a few years but early returns on several of those players look good to great, already.

It’s rather ironic that you conclude that we don’t need to raise the rabble when so many of the questions and points you’ve made prior to that, are raising the rabble unnecessarily at this very early stage while once again, not allowing for enough weighting on context.

I’m not suggesting you need to endorse everything he’s done but at some point, you either place some trust in him or you don’t. You can always trust but verify later, when more meaningful data at a more critical juncture, like what he’ll do this summer, emerges. That’s where I’m at.

But, it may not be suitable to you and based on the type of points your posts are bringing forth, it seems to me that your questions are rather rhetorical and the answers you’re seeking are rather premature.

I’m afraid there is nothing that anyone can say in here that will convince you differently and that’s fine too. Most posters are set in their ways and I never was comfortable with the idea of trying to convince anyone to begin with and I’m not going to start now. I’m just calling it as I see it and I’ll leave it at that.

 

[ReHabs]

I’m not suggesting you need to endorse everything he’s done but at some point, you either place some trust in him or you don’t.

I don't trust Hughes. That's the simple answer. I brought up arguments to that justify my lack of trust in him -- which doesn't mean I actively want him fired, or think he's a bad guy or a bad manager, but I don't know how he operates so I don't have any reason to trust him or is approach to building a team.

That's certainly going to be my perspective and the angle of my commentary until more things happen and we have a better picture of what he's about. His success would be our success, so we're all rooting for him of this I'm sure.

Trust is earned and we each all have different thresholds for that. It's not a matter of me being stubborn, I just need more data points before I lend the benefit of the doubt to the guy, so for this reason I think his TDL performance has to be placed on the scale and put into context and cannot be immediately waived away... if he bungles the draft and the off-season then we can also point at the TDL and say this guy was too passive or too much of a hardass negotiator and he bungled the TDL. If he succeeds in off-season we can say that he was handcuffed at the TDL and made lemonade from lemons.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

I don't trust Hughes. That's the simple answer. I brought up arguments to that justify my lack of trust in him -- which doesn't mean I actively want him fired, or think he's a bad guy or a bad manager, but I don't know how he operates so I don't have any reason to trust him or is approach to building a team.

That's certainly going to be my perspective and the angle of my commentary until more things happen and we have a better picture of what he's about. His success would be our success, so we're all rooting for him of this I'm sure.

Trust is earned and we each all have different thresholds for that. It's not a matter of me being stubborn, I just need more data points before I lend the benefit of the doubt to the guy, so for this reason I think his TDL performance has to be placed on the scale and put into context and cannot be immediately waived away... if he bungles the draft and the off-season then we can also point at the TDL and say this guy was too passive or too much of a hardass negotiator and he bungled the TDL. If he succeeds in off-season we can say that he was handcuffed at the TDL and made lemonade from lemons.

I'd say I trust Hughes more than Gorton. I think Hughes probably has newer and more interesting ideas whereas Gorton is the dinosaur hockey guy. Hence the nepotism with Bobrov, for example.

 

[Runner77]

I don't trust Hughes. That's the simple answer.

That is rather obvious. FWIW, I don’t think that’s representative of the majority of our fan base since most appear to me to want to give him time to implement his decisions.

Also, I never suggested that I had blind trust. It’s trust and verify but I’m just choosing to verify after this summer’s activities and then re-assess. Works for me, you see it differently and it’s your prerogative.

 

[Habs Icing]

For the goalie , I propose a diet of healthy Montreal City tap water. I'm telling you boys...something in there....Bernie Parent Corey Crawford Patrick Roy Martin Brodeur Roberto Luongo Jean sebastien Giguere Jose Theodore Carey Price ,what do they all have in common? Grew up on Montreal tap water baby (aside from price who drank his a little bit later).

Crawford and Giguere are the latest goalies on your list and they were at their prime what 10-12 years ago. If your theory is correct then that list tells me someone at city hall has been tampering with the water for the last few years.

Personally, I think they're bringing their families over and taking communal baths in the water reservoir. Just a suspicion. I could be wrong.

 

[Habs Icing]

Not loosing any sleep over this.

A Habs lose tomorrow would be big.

Subtle, Runner. And the funny thing is, you almost got me.

 

[Scriptor]

PLD been tempermental player in past. He's going to be in a fish bowl. Not sure if good move or not. I get the size thing though. But it's a lot of money and trade pieces we have to give up. Plus he has to be willing to play the wing or third line center. Or we trade either Dach or Suzuki.

Why this, that or that? Those are not the only options.

Actually, PLD could slot in as the 1st line C, so, must play as a 3rd line C, or go to the wing?

Why?

Dach could C an offensive kid line on the 3rd line, or play wing with Suzuki and Caufield again?

And, yes, PLD could play wing on Suzuki or Dach's line.

Having THREE top-6 Cs is far from a problem -- It's an advantage!

In the short term, we also need top-6 wingers because our prospects aren't ready to step in, so the switch of one C to the wing is beneficial.

IMO, there will be a one-year lull before we see an influx of top-end forwards into the lineup.

While Farrell and Heineman might somehow make the NHL roster (if they don't end up playing in Laval, or back in Europe, in Heinemann's case), the likely won't be playing in the top-6 right away?

The roster's make-up would be in flux, depending on what went WIN's way if a PLD trade occurred.

Without a PLD trade, the C-line would look like this, not likely:

Suzuki
Dach
Dvorak
Evans/Tierney

With a PLD trade, it could look like this:

Suzuki
PLD
Dach
Evans/Tierney

Plug in wingers realistically in the first scenario Our prospects won't magically all be called up to fill the blanks as most won't be ready to play in the NHL yet. Doing as much would only hinder their development and, then, we would really be in Edmonton territory from years ago.

Caufield - Suzuki - Gurianov
Slafkovsky - Dach - Anderson
RHP/Hoffman/Farrell - Dvorak - Gallagher
Hoffman/Pitlick/Pezzetta/Ylonen/Heineman - Evans/Tierney - Armia

That's the likeliest NHL-ready outcome and it comes with a whole lot of question marks; Gurianov in a 1st line role, Gallagher, his health and his production level upon his return to the lineup, whether the useless veterans (Hoffman, Pitlick, Pezzetta) play or Farrell and/or Heineman make the opening day roster).

I personally don't see much of a progression in this lineup as a player like RHP becomes a place holder on the top-6 and veterans like Hoffman, Gallagher, Pitlick, Pezzetta, Ylönen or Armia occupy to large a role on a transforming roster.

The second option is better for me as it takes away some question marks and some clutter, allowing for at least three, but likely four decent duos and a better opportunity for a player like Farrell or Heineman to join the roster.

It replaces experience in Gallagher, Armia, Hoffman, Pezzetta and the like with skilled and productive experience in Dubois:

Caufield - Suzuki - Anderson
Farrell/RHP - Dubois - Gurianov/Slafkovsky
RHP/Farrell - Dach - Slafkovsky/Gurianov
- Evans - HeinemanArmia/Gallagher/Hoffman

I don't trust Hughes. That's the simple answer. I brought up arguments to that justify my lack of trust in him -- which doesn't mean I actively want him fired, or think he's a bad guy or a bad manager, but I don't know how he operates so I don't have any reason to trust him or is approach to building a team.

That's certainly going to be my perspective and the angle of my commentary until more things happen and we have a better picture of what he's about. His success would be our success, so we're all rooting for him of this I'm sure.

Trust is earned and we each all have different thresholds for that. It's not a matter of me being stubborn, I just need more data points before I lend the benefit of the doubt to the guy, so for this reason I think his TDL performance has to be placed on the scale and put into context and cannot be immediately waived away... if he bungles the draft and the off-season then we can also point at the TDL and say this guy was too passive or too much of a hardass negotiator and he bungled the TDL. If he succeeds in off-season we can say that he was handcuffed at the TDL and made lemonade from lemons.

Too passive or too much of a hard-ass negotiator?

IMO, Hughes sets the bar high for his trades and moving the goal posts on his demands only weakens his position over time and will be detrimental throughout his career as a GM if he starts doing that.

I'd rather get nothing than move Edmundson for a 4th round pick as rumoured in a possible trade with TB.

Hell, VS a 4th round pick, Edmundson would be more valuable as a depth D next season.

Considering what was received for Chiarot, for example, bowing down to such an offer would showcase Hughes as not being serious, or as being too malleable.

Hughes likely is not perfect -- I don't know anyone who is.

But, trust, distrust, at this stage? Really?

Are we already in this toxic dynamic?

 

[Sterling Archer]

Wilde not making sense. Saying Habs favour size and then says they want Benson at 5'10" 160 lbs. huh???

I'd be fine with these picks but they're inverse of where they're ranked. Benson and than Reinbacher.

 

[Habs Halifax]

PLD been tempermental player in past. He's going to be in a fish bowl. Not sure if good move or not. I get the size thing though. But it's a lot of money and trade pieces we have to give up. Plus he has to be willing to play the wing or third line center. Or we trade either Dach or Suzuki.

We are only trading for Dubois if the cost to acquire is around the Horvat or Trouba trades. Anything higher than that, we take our chances he reaches UFA.

We don't have to trade Suzuki or Dach if we add Dubois. Dach can play wing as a puck possession winger. Remember when we thought we were set with Suzuki, KK, Danault up the middle? You never settle with a select few centers and talent wants to play with talent. Dach is trending well and we can use him as a center or a puck possession winger and I'm sure he would be fine with it. He's already done it for us this season

I also would prefer to have a strong top 9 vs top 6. Winning in the NHL today is no longer a top 6 narrative. Having options is a good problem bud

 

[ReHabs]

Hughes likely is not perfect -- I don't know anyone who is.

But, trust, distrust, at this stage? Really?

Are we already in this toxic dynamic?

Who said anything about perfect?

But what’s with you guys — just because I don’t trust the new rookie GM who has two losing seasons under his belt today doesn’t mean I’ll be tilting against him forever. Trust is earned and I’m not even tilting against the guy. It’s all up in the air. Call it mild optimism.

Toxic negativity and toxic positivity and toxic tanking and toxic cheering for the team the wrong way are all just as bad as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'd say I trust Hughes more than Gorton. I think Hughes probably has newer and more interesting ideas whereas Gorton is the dinosaur hockey guy. Hence the nepotism with Bobrov, for example.

Personally, I trust them both. They can challenge each other and check blind spots. Love how Molson set this up. We can no longer have one face of management.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Wilde not making sense. Saying Habs favour size and then says they want Benson at 5'10" 160 lbs. huh???

I'd be fine with these picks but they're inverse of where they're ranked. Benson and than Reinbacher.

Wilde is an idiot and doesn't know shit about f***

 

[morhilane]

Wilde not making sense. Saying Habs favour size and then says they want Benson at 5'10" 160 lbs. huh???

I'd be fine with these picks but they're inverse of where they're ranked. Benson and than Reinbacher.

Benson I feel will drop, too much noise about his size and skating, while the noise around Reinbacher is that he's very loved by NHL scouts and people have been talking for weeks how he's going to be taken in the top 10.

Saying that, Wilde is very off if he believe the fans would be pissed if the Habs were taking Reinbacher in the top 10.

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

Wilde not making sense. Saying Habs favour size and then says they want Benson at 5'10" 160 lbs. huh???

I'd be fine with these picks but they're inverse of where they're ranked. Benson and than Reinbacher.

I can't believe for the most historic franchise in the league, we are stuck with reporters like Brian Wilde, Eric Engels, Jack Todd etc.

Wilde is basically like a real life version of Brick Tamland from Anchorman.

Like 2/3 of the posters around here add more value than any of them, without getting paid for it.

 

[Habs 4 Life]

Wilde not making sense. Saying Habs favour size and then says they want Benson at 5'10" 160 lbs. huh???

I'd be fine with these picks but they're inverse of where they're ranked. Benson and than Reinbacher.

I think Wilde is looking for attention here, nothing more

 

[Rapala]

But you act like, if something happens this offseason, it's Montreal on their knees with their pants pulled down and their rear right up in WIN's face, hiding over a broom stick and ready to undergo some unfortunate initiation rite.

I think it's in WIN's interest to get a deal done for Dubois this summer and, if you're true to what you write, that could be them circling back, ready to pull the trigger.

You'd be for it then?

No, too soon?

Say no to WIN and wait until the trade deadline, or that year's UFA market if Dubois isn't traded at the trade deadline?

I don't think there is a scenario where you think Dubois comes here, from your statements, when I break them down.

I disagree with your premise -- not that Hughes might want to see Dach progress at C -- he just well might because it's all to his/our advantage (you never have enough top-6 Cs).

I disagree with the portion where you say, as much as we won't sell assets unless our price is met, we won't buy them either.

What do you mean by that -- I disagree either way, but I'd like to be clearer on this -- that we won't buy, period, or that we won't buy unless our price is met?

If it's that we won't buy, period, I find that doubtful when I look at what Gorton did while he was GM in New York.

As far as it being that we won't buy assets unless our price is met, what's to say what Hughes pays for Dubois this summer isn't the price he set?

Not every trade needs to be one GM fleecing another, but I expect WIN doesn't get the haul they expect since they are not in a position to command such a haul.

We also all witnessed Hughes being willing to trade Romanov for a 13th OA (which was a great haul in and of itself) and then willing to flip that 13th OA for Kirby Dach.

I think that HuGo and Hughes, period, are a lot more proactive than you might believe.

Adding Dubois does not screw up the rebuild in the least and it might not even prevent Dach from being groomed as a C. We don't have that information and your fears it would don't amount to fact.

GTFO with your attitude and insults and take them elsewhere. Mr. Scriptor is the only one who can have a valid opinion. Like I said before we all know what you think as you keep posting it OVER and OVER. I don't think like or act like you and am happy for it. No need to reply we don't and won't agree.

 

[Tim Wallach]

Wilde not making sense. Saying Habs favour size and then says they want Benson at 5'10" 160 lbs. huh???

I'd be fine with these picks but they're inverse of where they're ranked. Benson and than Reinbacher.

Not weighing in either way on Wilde's opinions, but just pointing out his post you quoted isn't an opinion. He's simply pointing out that Pronman has Reinbacher at 7 and Benson at 13 and hence the wild swings in lists are starting to happen.