Do you think we should trade Andrew Brunette to help the future?
View Single Post
05-18-2010, 08:58 PM
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Originally Posted by
There are teams willing to trade for him for a lot of reasons posted in this thread. Because he isn't fast doesn't mean he doesn't produce, it does mean he might fit a different style of play (the trap) than what we're aiming to become (aggressive forecheck?) better though.
Honestly, I undervalue our tradable assets a lot (e.g. Bouchard for a 5th anyone?) but I do believe we could get more than a second rounder for Andrew. But saying we did just get a pick, it really doesn't mean we would be awful for two years as we wait for that prospect to develop. The trade would open up cap room for signings and other trades too.
Oh I agree with you, but I just don't see there being a reason now. With how shallow the free agent crop is for forwards, we'd be overpaying up the wazoo for a long-term replacement and is there anyone who needs the extra $2.5 million next year?
First Round Bust
: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.
"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by GopherState