View Single Post
04-18-2011, 12:31 PM
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Originally Posted by
i'd offer the LA pick and Smid. anything more is not worth it since we won't win the trade. its not about getting value with trades, but instead about winning ever single trade we make. Put simply - if we don't win the trade, don't do it. That's how teams like chicago got to the Cup - for example the Sharp trade for basically nothing.
Our team is ok now, we might as well wait for winning trades. Any lateral trade won't get us anywhere. An example of a lateral move is trading Hemsky for Burns (let alone adding in a 1st round pick...). Smid and a 1st might be viewed as an underpayment, but that's what it is, because this team shouldn't be overpaying any time soon.
We'll probably be a bottom 5 team next year as well (I hope not, but it is a possibility), so there's no rush to get guys like Burns this year....but he's an example of a nice piece to add if the other team "needs" to trade him, since they would be cheaper.
Almost everything you just wrote is wrong. We are not "ok", we are the worst team in the NHL for the second straight year. We also have arguably the worst defense in the NHL. If we can get a top pairing d-man who is nearing his prime, then do it, overpay if necessary. I would be in favor of moving Hemsky out in a deal for Burns, and adding Smid if necessary, but I think Minnesota wants another first round pick in the deal. Heck, make it a bigger deal.
To Minnesota : Hemsky, LA's 1st round pick, Ladislav Smid
To Edmonton: Brent Burns, either Nystrom or Kobasew, and a 3rd round pick.
Burns is the most valuable piece in the deal, so we instantly need to overpay, but I think this is quite fair.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by zeus3007*