We don't need to tank. And the 1st statement is totally incorrect.
As IMO Gallagher, Hoffman, petry will / should be traded next year.

So the holes:

____ - Suzuki - Caufield
_____ - ______ - Anderson
Drouin - Dvorak - Pitlick
Poehling - Evans - Ylonen

_____ - ____
Edmundson - _____
Romanov - Savard

Price/ MAF - Allen

So for the holes. If Habs want to fix them internally, they could do: 1LW: Hoffman 2LW:Gallagher 2C: Dvorak, and put Evans on 3C, and poehling on 4C. For #1LD put Edmundson, for 2LD put Romanov, for 3LD: put Harris/ schueneman. For #1RD: put petry. For #2RD. put Savard. And resign Wideman for #3RD, or put barron / Harris there.
You would have:

Gallagher - Suzuki - Caufield
Hoffman - Dvorak - Anderson
Drouin - Evans - Pitlick
Dauphin - Poehling- Ylonen

Edmundson - Petry
Romanov - Savrad
Schueneman - Wideman

Price / MAF - Allen

Is it ideal? No. Is it bottom 10 in NHL: surely not. Is is top 10 in NHL: probably not. Is it a team fighting for a playoff spot? Definitely. Would this team be able to make the playoffs? I think so. Therefore if you fix those holes, you can get a team competing for the cup.
In my scenario, Gallagher, Hoffman, and petry would be traded. In my scenario gourde, comtois are traded for. And Burakovsky, Letang,maata and Colin Miller are signed.

Therfore, the lineup would be:

Comtois - Suzuki - Caufield
Burakovsky- Gourde / Wright (if drafted) - Anderson
Drouin - Dvorak - Pitlick
Poehling - Sam Steel - Ylonen

Edmundson - Letang
Romanov - Savard
Maata - Miller

Proce / Marc André Fleury - Allen

Name me the holes on this team. I really don't think Habs need to tank more, and it's proof right here.

We don't need to tank. And the 1st statement is totally incorrect.
As IMO Gallagher, Hoffman, petry will / should be traded next year.

So the holes:

____ - Suzuki - Caufield
_____ - ______ - Anderson
Drouin - Dvorak - Pitlick
Poehling - Evans - Ylonen

_____ - ____
Edmundson - _____
Romanov - Savard

Price/ MAF - Allen

So for the holes. If Habs want to fix them internally, they could do: 1LW: Hoffman 2LW:Gallagher 2C: Dvorak, and put Evans on 3C, and poehling on 4C. For #1LD put Edmundson, for 2LD put Romanov, for 3LD: put Harris/ schueneman. For #1RD: put petry. For #2RD. put Savard. And resign Wideman for #3RD, or put barron / Harris there.
You would have:

Gallagher - Suzuki - Caufield
Hoffman - Dvorak - Anderson
Drouin - Evans - Pitlick
Dauphin - Poehling- Ylonen

Edmundson - Petry
Romanov - Savrad
Schueneman - Wideman

Price / MAF - Allen

Is it ideal? No. Is it bottom 10 in NHL: surely not. Is is top 10 in NHL: probably not. Is it a team fighting for a playoff spot? Definitely. Would this team be able to make the playoffs? I think so. Therefore if you fix those holes, you can get a team competing for the cup.
In my scenario, Gallagher, Hoffman, and petry would be traded. In my scenario gourde, comtois are traded for. And Burakovsky, Letang,maata and Colin Miller are signed.

Therfore, the lineup would be:

Comtois - Suzuki - Caufield
Burakovsky- Gourde / Wright (if drafted) - Anderson
Drouin - Dvorak - Pitlick
Poehling - Sam Steel - Ylonen

Edmundson - Letang
Romanov - Savard
Maata - Miller

Proce / Marc André Fleury - Allen

Name me the holes on this team. I really don't think Habs need to tank more, and it's proof right here.

So your proof that the Habs could have a good team is that if we trade 3 guys away and sign/trade for 6, we’d be good? Come on man, that’s not how being close works

barron out for the szn with an ankle injury but will be ready for training camp per habs twitter

can the hockey gods chill the f*ck out

Jake Allen's season is over as well

There goes our playoffs chances

Hi everyone.

The leafs are better than the habs.

Bye everyone.

Habs outscored them 12-8 this year, and.....
It was 3-1
Try next time, sasky!

I was just trying to get some emotion going.

trying to start an argument?...

sounds reportable to me...

I was just trying to get some emotion going.

What's there to argue with our whole hearts? We're aren't like those geeks on Twitter who say some excuse about matthews getting 50 in 50. Most of us have common sense, at least I think so.....
Here:

Leafs (this season) >>>>> Habs (This season)
Matthews >> Caufield (currently)
Matthews = what Caufield will be in future
MSL>> Keefe
Habs fans>>>>>>>>>>> Leafs fans

What's there to argue?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Caufield has a long way to go before he is at Matthews level. Matthews is a top 2 forward in the league. I can't see Caufield ever getting to that level. I think he could easily be a top 20 forward though, maybe even top 10.

4. Sure, I don't really care.

5. LOL. I mean it's the 2 crappiest fanbases. I'd agree but not that many >'s.

I meant,
What caufield will be in the future in terms of goalscoring = Matthews goalscoring

I agree on the last part lol, the extra >> were a joke

hello saskleaf

matthews < caufield

goodbye saskleaf

Tavares

I could see him cracking 50 at some point in his career, but I don't think he'll consistently do it, nor do I think he'll hit 60.

that didn’t work

I doubt Matthews consistently gets 60, but I think caufield will consistently get 40, and a good chance he has a few 50s

Tavares>Suzuki
Spezza>Gallager
Kallgren>Allen

Lol not sure what you mean here.

No. No. No.

i tried to reverse the > signs so that they would point to the MTL players
capfriendly said no 😒

You guys do realize I was kidding, right?