It’s a crazy time of year, no doubt. Hours before trade deadline, rumours are swirling around the NHL and it’s hard to keep up with what’s somewhat real and what’s not. Most of the rumours circulating around the Montreal Canadiens have been the same ones that we have talked about this past week so as we are not into click baits, we try to not repeat ourselves too often… unless new information comes out.
This one doesn’t speak specifically of the Canadiens but anytime a French Canadian player is involved, you know that Montreal will be, at the very least, inquiring. And when it involves a team that Jeff Gorton used to work for, it deserves even more attention… particularly that there have been rumours around the two teams in the recent past.
This time, David Pagnotta of The Fourth Period, reports that the New York Rangers have apparently made Alexis Lafrenière available. Of course, the asking price would be steep but when you’re the Habs and you’re sitting in the basement of the NHL’s standings, what do you really have to lose by considering putting together a serious package?
What would be a reasonable package the Canadiens could put together? Do they value their 2022 pick (even though it’s in Montreal) more than they do Lafrenière? How do they view the potential of Shane Wright, or whomever they feel they could select? Would they have to add and if so, how much? Would Lafrenière, a player who oozes offensive talent, flourish under a coach like Martin St-Louis?
Here is a list of comparatives on the Canadiens, numbers compiled prior to the game against the Ottawa Senators.
| NAME | AGE | GP | G | A | PTS | PTS/GP | TOI/GP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suzuki | 22 | 61 | 17 | 28 | 45 | 0.74 | 20:26 |
| Caufield | 21 | 46 | 12 | 17 | 29 | 0.63 | 16:04 |
| Drouin | 26 | 32 | 6 | 14 | 20 | 0.63 | 17:17 |
| Lafrenière | 20 | 59 | 13 | 6 | 19 | 0.32 | 13:59 |
| Evans | 25 | 52 | 7 | 11 | 18 | 0.35 | 15:39 |
| Pitlick | 24 | 25 | 6 | 11 | 17 | 0.68 | 16:46 |
| Dvorak | 26 | 35 | 7 | 9 | 16 | 0.46 | 17:41 |
UPDATE:
More reading…
The R-Word Not In Hughes’ Vocabulary