Thread: Proposal: Edm-Tor
View Single Post
Old
08-29-2012, 07:35 AM
  #15
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by weak5holeguy View Post
Having said that Colborne hasn't proven anything either. But to say Colborne wouldn't be wanted in the future is foolish.
Not foolish at all, AND I said he wouldn't be NEEDED, not "wanted". If the Oilers goal is to upgrade their defence, why would they waste their "return value" in a trade on another forward? I didn't mention anything about Colborne's value or projection as an NHLer, I was strictly saying that for a team so overloaded with young forwards, it makes little sense for them to actively seek out more of them in return for a guy they picked 10th overall (who, admittedly, is not offering decent return on that investment at the moment).

My point was, and still stands: if the Oilers are going to make a move for a defenceman, they need to put all their eggs in one basket and get one good defenceman in a return for their assets. "Splitting up the value" they get in return makes little sense. Colborne may have a nice career, but he wouldn't fit into Edmonton's plans at all. He would be redundant for THEM. That's no knock against Colborne, but for a team who was considering trading down in this past draft to select a defenceman, or taking Murphy outright... adding yet ANOTHER young forward to their stable makes absolutely zero sense. They need a defenceman that has "the value of Colborne AND Franson".

Edmonton needs to be all-in for a defenceman, and not bothering with proposals that try to add forwards to help "even out a deal" because the defenceman being offered isn't up to par / what they really need going forwards.

BonkTastic is online now   Reply With Quote