No, I'm arguing with logic. No need to avoid questions. That comment proves your distaste for MTL fans though.

He has developed in the minors, yes. He plays against younger talent now, yes. He also plays against talent his own age. He was drafted high and has developed accordingly. He has been good-great at every step of the way. You can try to discount his abilities but you'd be embarking on a losing journey with futile efforts.

Mock trade for Guhle? At absolute minimum he returns the exact same as Lundkvist just did. Depending on market demand IF we were to make him available, he will fetch higher. I'm not saying he will fetch multiple firsts and futures and roster players but he is better than Lundkvist and therefore could probably fetch an additional piece or two, or better pieces in general.

My justification for Guhle being so good is that he is so good. Find an argument that disproves that and we'll let ya have this one.

look, don't want to jump in and argue whether or not a guy who's played 47 games in the past 2 seasons projects as a top pair LD or whatever, but i am gonna jump in here

it's pretty much consensus that right-hand D is more valuable than LHD, just because of the general scarcity of quality RD available in the league right now - it's not just us message board nerds saying this. If a GM thinks two D prospects are at about the same skill level, they're going to pick the righty more than the lefty, regardless of the makeup of their team, because their handedness adds value.

ok but do you understand that your argument is incredibly weak when your "justification for Guhle being so good is that he is so good."?

Like there is no point in you being on here if your arguments are always just "i think he is good!"... "why?".. "because he is" lol. whatever man

I agree with your assessment, at the same skill level (and with scarcity) RD would be more valuable than LD. If that was a blanket statement then no RD would be available. It comes down to the needs of the team. I've seen many times on here that NYR wouldn't consider a deal involving a RD heading to NYR cause there's no room. In that circumstance RD does not have more value than LD as NYR would need a LD over a RD (hypothetically).

I believe Guhle is the better player between him and Lunkvist. If Lundkvist RD status elevated his value, it was to match a Guhle value who would be the better player imo.

If their handedness adds value and they get buried on a depth chart after being acquired, how does that add value to the team? You would essentially be paying a premium for a player by giving up valued assets (again hypothetically) just to bury him on your roster and diminish his value. Basically trade 2 "B" assets for 1 "A" asset only to have them rot away and become a "B" or even "C" asset since they don't get moved or played properly.

Again, you're on the internet. You have yet to come up with one reason why he isn't good. That's a two way street and you have yet to provide facts so I have nothing to argue against other than you incorrect opinion of Guhle.

I have done plenty of research and highlight reel watching to understand Guhles value, clearly you have not. I'm not doing the leg work for you if you don't want to defend your outrageous claim.

If you can't prove what you're trying to prove then it's not up to me to reestablish what is already accepted as the truth.

i may have not sent to you, but i did earlier lmao.

you are bias and its mad funny

Any GM who says "no I won't take a more valuable player because I already have enough prospects at that position" is not going to be a GM for that long, regardless of what fans on here say. Until that prospect has established himself as a full-time, bona fide NHL player he's just a lottery ticket waiting for the drawing, and having more shots at the jackpot never, ever hurt anyone - good prospects aren't going to "rot away", they're going to force their way into the lineup. If a prospect is rotting away, more often than not it's because they weren't a great prospect to begin with and didn't do enough to earn their ice time - if a player is good, he's going to make it known, and then you'll be dealing with every GM's favorite "problem" - too many good assets for a position of demand.

If you're going to bring it back to Guhle & Lundkvist though, most evaluators have each of those players pegged as top-4 D with the ability to be top pair if parts of their games advance. Guhle looked fine leading up to his draft year but to point to this year's numbers as proof he's a slam dunk prospect would be missing the fact that he was playing as a 19 year old in the WHL. It's probably for the best that he *didn't* break camp with Ducharme's Canadiens, but I would have been more worried if my recent 1st round pick wasn't a point per game player in their age-19 season in juniors. As far as Lundkvist, he struggled in his first NHL cup of coffee but you can't ignore the fact that *his* age-19 season involved him scoring at a slightly lower pace than Guhle while playing with professionals in Sweden. Euros typically struggle in their first year coming over to North America, and prospect evaluators this summer still called him a top-4 guy, so I really don't see much that puts Guhle as head-and-shoulders above him in terms of value.

Not a bias, just not bending to your demands.

Weren't you "done"? Wanna go another round, really?

I have used plenty of facts, but no trade comps. I don't need trade comps to tear your arguments to shreds.

Let me put this is terms I hope we can find common ground on.

Your premise:

Players are only worth what a team is willing to pay for them.

My counter-premise is:

Players are worth somewhere between what the selling team thinks they're worth and what the buying team thinks they're worth.

Deals come together outside of the normal curve by a certain factors that bias that value. Some of those biases are:

-Organizational need for a player in that position due to injury, retirement, poor planning
-Organizatiknal need for intangibles that player brings like leadership, toughness, other things hard to measure
-Cap pressure from a stagnant/slow growing cap due to Covid
-Pressure/Desire to load up for a cup run
-GM/Coach/Player pressure to perform for a new contract
-A myriad of other factors I can't fathom right now

We can see that play out most notably at the TDL each year, but the 2022 offseason was another biased set of circumstances:

-Paying a 1st to move Monahan
-Pacioretty for free
-Klingberg 1 year deal
-Kadri under market deal
-DeBrincat trade under market value

Case in point:

Edmundson and Chiarot are very similar players on very similar contracts. Chiarot has put up better offensive numbers by sacrificing some of his defensive prowess. Eddy is younger.

If I proposed trading Eddy to a contender for a late 1st (unprotected), late 4th and a C+ prospect - no one does that deal. It's essentially the same.or I would argue a better deal because Eddy is younger and has an additional year of cost certainty and has a better +/- but no way any team accepts.

The reason that deal heavily biased towards the Habs on value got done, pressure/desire to load up for a cup run. If the Redwings called tomorrow and offered Chiarot to any team... They are not giving up what the Panthers did.

Now can we agree that your initial premise was just wrong?

We're really debating circumstantial options here. The better player would always be more sought after but why create a positional logjam unnecessarily? If it's a screaming deal being offered then sure, but if you're actively going to try to acquire additional players for your team why look to add to a position you already have tons of? That would be like NSH looking to add another LD without removing one of the LD from the current roster. It would hurt the team more than help it when their assets could be moved around to fill the holes in the roster over adding depth to a position of depth already.

We're all debating "lottery ticket prospects" here. Lundkvist hasn't proven he's bonafide either for what it's worth or he would've forced his way onto NYR lineup fulltime.

Both will likely be top-4 for sure but like I said imo Guhle is going to be the better option, even if he is only a lowly LD. I would be highly concerned if he wasn't putting up mad numbers as a 19 year old in the WHL as a highly touted prospect as well. Ducharme's Habs would've likely hindered his development so it was best that he wasn't brought to the roster.

Both will be good/great defencemen in this league for years to come (I'm assuming we can just cash in these lottery tickets) and currently RD is needed league wide but in the end I still feel Guhle will be the better all around defenceman due to his style of play. The one thing I really hate about this site is that most only look at point production and assess a players value on that alone (or weigh it super heavy even for defence). There's 200' of ice and nobody plays the entire game with the puck. Not saying you've assessed this way, just making the statement.

I would argue that the amateur an professional scouts around the league but especially as round the Habs organization, including the media, have said his ceiling it top pair D. Should we listen to those scouts who have watched literally thousands of NHL games and used their analytical levers to the best of their abilities ... Or should we listen to our buddy who's best arguments thus far have been "don't tell me about a stagnant cap crisis lowering players values... If DeBrincat got traded for what he did all your players have no value!!!!"

no. your opinion is only that, your opinion. no facts or trade comps or nothing lmao. i also wasnt talking to you

Cool story. Again, goes both ways there champ.

The last refuge of the defeated...

nah, we **** on you because your team went 22-49-11 and you think dvorak is going to get you dubois.

alright then.

just because you dont like WAR, PPG per 60, corsi and actual stats doesnt change the fact that they are there and are real lmao