Quoting: BeterChiarelli
I suspect Montreal, or at least their fans, will be asking for Broberg, Bourgault, and Edmonton's next two firsts. Possibly more.
That is a hell of a lot of capital to move for what's going to equate to marginal upgrades at the positions Edmonton is hurting at. I don't really like it at all, even if it gets Edmonton out from the Campbell and Kulak contracts in one fell swoop. I would rather a far more creative solution that sees Edmonton get more for its picks and prospects.
Look at the OEL trade for a fairly recent comparable.
3 cap dumps (1 year term)
for
OEL (long term) and Garland (RFA)
It cost them a 1st, 2nd, and 7th.
Garland was a positive asset but OEL was one of the worst contracts in the league.
Edmonton is trying to unload players with multiple years of term.
Montreal doesn't have a contract as bad as OEL's to offset some of that (Gallagher and Anderson have lower cap hits at half the term).
Edmonton isn't looking for a piece as valuable as Garland may have been at the time (young RFA on a 60 point pace), so that helps.
However, they aren't bargaining from a position of strength (putting it lightly), which does not help.
They also aren't moving pure "cap dumps" aside from Campbell, so they may get some credit in a deal if the other team can actually make good use of those players. (Hint: that's not Montreal)
ROUGHLY estimating in comparison:
Campbell's contract alone is worse than the 3 cap dumps by Vancouver. (Totals are $12M x 1 year vs $5M x 3 years, and that's not counting this season.)
The worst contract Montreal can offer is Gallagher (highest value and term) and the best asset they can give back is Montembeault (young RFA).
That would put the starting point around Campbell + 1st + 2nd for Gallagher + Montembeault, which doesn't account for everything in the ARZ/VAN trade comparison.
As a fan I might be convinced to make that deal from either side anyway, but I don't think many would agree.