LOL So you're taking the good player from CGY and sending them two meh players. How exactly is that helping them?

Absolutely not to both of those.

Habs decline that trade easily.

10.5 million for 8 years in his 30s for a player who has not been worth that for the vast majority of his career is one of the worst deals in the nhl atm.

After the 24-25 season dvorak is done and even if they buy anderson out at that point is 8.2 million spread over 4 years vs 63 million over 6.

You can easily get a better player than a mid 30s huberdeau for 8.5 million.

Oilers jump all over that

Huberdeau has been awful and has an awful contract. The logic here is Montreal gives up two meh players on shorter term deals, in exchange for a higher-upside player with a bonkers bad contract.

Habs don't take those risks at all. Edmonton would still need to add a 1st and even then likely not enough.

Huberdeau would be an interesting risk to take but wouldn't make sense at all unless this management list it's mind and thinks we're closer then this team is

The flaw here is assuming that CGY wants to rebuild. Also, I was being kind saying "meh" players. Huberdeau still has more points right now than Anderson and Dvorak combined. He's definitely looking like a poor fit in CGY, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater or that Huberdeau has no value.

If they wanted Lavoie so badly, they'd have claimed him off waivers. This makes it Allen+ for Campbell straight up, which isn't fair at all.

As for the CGY trade, this might be more subjective but I wouldn't go anywhere near Huberdeau.

Congrats on trading away 2 bad contracts and ending with 2 worse ones and nothing else.

I can't believe you actually srart your answer by (capital letters) LOL... and then go about refusing the trade from Calgary's pov... wow... talk about being out of touch with trade values.

Huberdeau's contract is 100% THE worst contract in the entire NHL. Nothing even comes close. Nothing.

You can try and spread some LOLs and try to stir the pot, but it's a fact. Montreal would NEVER EVER do that - And Calgary would do that 100% of the time, all day every day.

Ask both Calgary and Montreal fans. As you can see in the comments.

Breaking; players are not 'just' players in the NLH anymore. They are player-contracts.
Huberdeau's contract is MORE than both players, and twice as long. He's also the oldest of the 3, and not good under pressure... which Montreal has plenty of.

In Dovrak can be traded for a 6th round pick tomorrow.
Anderson, half the salary and half the term is our bad contract, and I can see the Habs not being in a rush to get rid of it because of the winning window not even opened yet.

Anyway, cheers buddy!

It's amazing that you can write all that, especially in such a condescending tone, and be completely wrong about everything. Your rationale that I used capital letters in "CGY" is extraordinary childish.

Nobody is stating that Huberdeau's contract, at the moment, is a good contract. That said, CGY would never make that trade. Huberdeau is an excellent hockey player and there's a better chance of him figuring it out, than not. Plus, if CGY truly wanted to move him, there are far better ways to go about making this trade than simply swapping cap-hits to take on immensely worse players also on bad contracts.

I love how you act like a total douche and then try finish up by acting like a gentleman. Classic passive aggressive behavior from a weak human.

Huberdeau's contract is more than the combined contract of the two of them? Yup, by a whopping $500K. Man, you just shredded my argument there, BUDDY.

If CGY decided to try and move Huberdeau, you can bet there are teams who are willing to take the risk if CGY simply eats part of the contract rather than taking on two bums.

So yeah, you suck at this.

Cheers mate!

*capital letters on LOL. To emphasize the laughing out loud, as though everyone everywhere found it sooo obvious.
If I appeared condescending, I apologize.
Childish? Fine, go at it if you allow yourself to be passive-aggresive after claiming I'm passive-aggresive. Go ahead buddy.

"That said, CGY would never make that trade" - Well, agree to disagree. That's all I'm saying. I feel the opposite; that Montreal would never do this. So let's agree to disagree. I won't claim you're ignorant, cause obviously it seems to have struck a cord. But from the reactions on here, it seems that this trade proposal is not 100% or 0%, solely based on reactions.

I shouldn't have said that it's crazy outlandissh to offer this from Montreal's perspective. And it's not crazy outlandish from Calgary's perspective?

All good buddy?

"I love how you act like a total douche and then try finish up by acting like a gentleman. Classic passive aggressive behavior from a weak human."

Finishing up acting like a gentleman = weak human. Ohhh, ok. I see. I should stick with one-way douche then? Weak human? Ok sir, I guess you know. Riight.
I did realize I had been a little intense in my reaction. I realized I may have taken that trade offer slightly personal... and so I wanted to calm my message a little by ending it as buddy-to-buddy, as we all can sometimes talk like this to good friends when discussion gets heated. But I guess that humility and trying to bring a little peace is... weak. Ok.

And fine, sure, I suck at this. And saying all this is in "no way" condescending" or "douche" rright? Guess not because if it's coming from you, it's different. Coming from others though, it is.

I see that there's no dialogue or humility visible, but I'll still say Hope you're doing well, I apologize if my comments irritated you, and I hope you have a nice day.
And if that's weak, so be it.
Peace buddy!

The "add to ignore list" function is a beautiful feature for trolls, best to not give them a platform to puke on.

Oh man, I didn't know about that feature, thank you!

I DID react a little intensely, but didn't fall into insulting or attacking him directly; I was always referring to the players and trade; but when I started the 2nd reply, I noticed that I did 'sorta mock' the use of 'LOL' and I shouldn't have... tried to end it more peacefully... but with all that vitriol and anger and insults and attempt at hurting, then I see that there's no dialogue possible.

Cheers buddy!